Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Sea Fisheries Provisional Order Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — MANCHURIA.

Mr. SMITHERS: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state whether any damage has been done to British persons and property as a result of the hostilities between the Japanese and Chinese troops in Manchuria; and whether steps have been taken to ensure the protection of such property and persons in the event of any further development of fighting in this area?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): So far as I am aware, no damage to British property or persons has resulted from the disturbed conditions prevailing in Manchuria. No special steps have been found necessary, but the situation is being watched and any practicable action which may be necessary or desirable will be taken.

Captain CAZALET: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether our legation has sent any body to the affected area in Manchuria to watch events?

Sir J. SIMON: Yes, the contending parties have indicated their willingness to have military attachés in Manchuria, and, in fact, there are representatives both of the British Government and, I believe, of other Governments.

Captain. PETER MACDONALD: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs whether the British Government is taking any action, and, if so, what, to notify both Japan and China that whatever the result of the existing military operations Great Britain will insist on the maintenance of the open door for international trade in Manchuria; and whether he is able to give any assurances on this point?

Sir J. SIMON: The principle of the open door for international trade in Manchuria is safeguarded by the Nine-Power Washington Treaty of 6th February, 1922. His Majesty's Government attach the greatest importance to this principle, and my hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that the interests of British trade will be constantly borne in mind.

Captain MACDONALD: Have there been any breaches of the Treaty referred to in recent months?

Sir J. SIMON: Not, I think, in this connection.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information concerning the terms of the proposal by the Japanese representative in Paris for a commission of inquiry into the situation in Manchuria; and, if so, whether: 4.

Sir J. SIMON: At a public meeting of the Council of the League of Nations on the 21st November the Japanese delegate made a proposal that a League Commission should be sent to study on the spot the situation in Manchuria and in China generally. It would be understood that the Commission would not intervene in direct negotiations between the parties and would not attempt to interfere with the movements of troops on either side. The Chinese delegate said that he could not commit himself to acceptance of the proposed Commission until he knew further details. The idea of a Commission was welcomed in general terms by the other members of the Council, including the British representative. The proposal is being carefully studied by the Council. His Majesty's Government is co-operating in the fullest way with the
other members of the Council to bring the contesting parties together in an effort to reach an agreed solution.

Mr. BEVAN: Is not the failure of the League to declare against Japan dealing a deadly blow at the prestige of the League, and is it not desirable, in the interests of peace and the machinery of peace, that the League Council should declare immediately against the action of Japan in Manchuria?

Sir J. SIMON: Action by the Council of the League, as in the case of any other impartial body, must proceed on the basis of hearing both sides, and I hope it is too early to say that in this matter the action of the League will fail.

Mr. BEVAN: Is it not the fact that at the moment when Japan is suggesting a commission of inquiry into affairs in Manchuria she is also taking hostile action against Manchuria and occupying the whole of the province?

Mr. ATTLEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that in dealing with this proposal by Japan for a commission the League is not in any way waiving the position which it has taken up respecting the performance of covenants under the League as to the cessation of hostilities and submitting the affair to the League?

Sir J. SIMON: One of the matters now being considered is what is the proper form of the resolution in order to safeguard that position as far as possible.

Mr. LANSBURY: Seeing that Japan and China are still fighting and that Japan is in effective occupation of Manchuria, is not there anything that the right hon. Gentleman can do on behalf of this country, if the League is unable to do it, to let Japan know the feelings of this country in the matter?

Sir J. SIMON: I would wish to assure the right hon. Gentleman that these matters are very present to my mind. I am quite satisfied that it is by the joint and, if possible, unanimous action of the Powers who are associated with the Council of the League that the best influence will be exerted.

Mr. LANSBURY: I—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—I wish to give notice that on
the Adjournment this evening we shall, though not in any hostile sense, take the opportunity of putting further questions and stating our own views on the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (ECONOMIC POSITION).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action is proposed to be taken in regard to the request made by the German Government for the convocation of a special advisory committee to inquire, under the Young plan, into the economic and financial position of Germany; and if he has ascertained whether Germany is prepared to accept the position that if such a body is set up they shall have power to examine the question of possible economies as regards the naval, military, police, and other items of public expenditure now being incurred by Germany, including the credit arrangements into which she has entered with Russia?

Sir J. SIMON: As regards the first part of this question, the necessary action is now, under the provisions of the Young plan, being taken by the Bank of International Settlements; as regards the second part, the German Government in their memorandum of the 20th of November, published in the Press, expressed the view that the committee must consider the problem in its entirety and with regard to all its contributory factors. It will, of course, be for the committee itself to decide as to the range and scope of its inquiries.

Sir F. HALL: Is it not a fact that, according to the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was precluded from continuing her military airships, and has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the enormous developments which have taken place especially as regards the Steel Helmets I Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of Germany to these two facts?

Sir J. SIMON: I do not think that matter arises. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will put that question on the Paper.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this inquiry
will in any way damnify our claim for payment of the frozen credits?

Sir J. SIMON: Most certainly not. This is a step in procedure designed to bring about a general discussion.

Sir F. HALL: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the second part of the question, he will see that I referred to naval and military preparations. Will he take into consideration the action of the Steel Helmets and the enormous increase in the amount of money spent on aviation?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Were there not also other pledges on behalf of other Powers signatory to the Treaty of Versailles concerning general disarmament?

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Mr. A. BEVAN: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the subjects which are on the agenda for the Council of the League of Nations meeting in January; and who will compose the British delegation?

Sir J. SIMON: The agenda for the January session of the Council of the League of Nations has not yet been received. Should circumstances permit, I myself hope to represent His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom at the meeting.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

DISCHARGES.

Mr. McGOVERN: 6.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the names of the vessels on which the 24 dismissed men were serving; and to what extent these men were ringleaders in the Invergordon mutiny?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): In reply to the first part of the question, at the time of their discharge from the Service the men were serving either at the Royal Naval Barracks or the Royal Marine Barracks at Devonport. They had recently been serving in "Rodney," "Norfolk," "Adventure," and "Dorset-shire." In reply to the second part of the question, the Admiralty are not in possession of this information, and do not propose to obtain it.

Mr. McGOVERN: As the right hon. Gentleman has told us that these men had refused to forget the past, can he tell us whether they were accused of being ringleaders in the Invergordon mutiny?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I have already answered that they were not accused of that. What they were accused of was action subsequently.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman not perfectly satisfied that these men were not discharged for any action they may or may not have taken at Invergordon?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Yes, Sir, absolutely.

Mr. MAXTON: Yes, but it is the House that wants to be satisfied. As a matter of fact, were "Rodney," "Norfolk," "Adventure," and "Dorset-shire" at Invergordon?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: They were, with many other ships.

BUILDING PROGRAMME.

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 8.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Government to review the naval building programme of the late Government with a view to ascertaining whether it is sufficient to keep the Royal Navy up to the maximum strength permitted by the terms of the London Naval Treaty?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The naval building programme for 1931 has already been authorised by Parliament, and it would be premature to say anything as to what further programme it will be necessary to submit in 1932. I need scarcely say that this is a subject which is continually under review by the Admiralty, who will make proposals when necessary to His Majesty's Government.

Sir C. CAYZER: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that it is the intention of the Government to build up to the maximum strength permitted under the terms of the London Naval Treaty?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I do not think I can add anything to the answer that I have given.

ROSYTH DOCKYARD.

Mr. JOHN WALLACE: 9.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any effort is being made by his Department to further the sale or lease for industrial purposes of the available land, buildings, equipment and wharfage in and around Rosyth Dockyard?

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Captain Euan Wallace): Yes, Sir. The Admiralty have made it fully known in the locality that they have land available for industrial development and have also given wider publicity to the fact by means of advertisement.

Mr. WALLACE: If that be the case, may I ask why it is that the official at Rosyth is not permitted to give definite and specific information regarding the lands and buildings to the Dunfermline Industrial Development Committee, specially set up to attract industries to the area?

Captain WALLACE: My information is that the committee have been given very full and complete information. If my hon. Friend has any specific point, I hope he will bring it to my notice, and we shall be very glad of his co-operation in this matter.

Mr. WALLACE: I can do so now. I have letters in my hand which confirm the point I am making.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS.

Mr. McGOVERN: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many persons have been deported from Cyprus in consequence of the recent disturbances; whether any of the sentences to deportation are life sentences, and, if so, how many; what are the terms of the remaining sentences; and whether the increase in the amount of the salt tax, which led to the disturbances, has now been discontinued by the Government of Cyprus?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): In consequence of the recent disturbances in Cyprus 10 persons have been deported. The deportation orders state that the persons in question must leave the island and remain outside the territory there-
after. With regard to the last part of the question, I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the duty levied on salt imported into the Colony, which in the case of packing and rock salt was raised by the Order in Council of the 11th August, 1931, from 3 copper piastres (about 4d.) to 4 copper piastres (about 5⅓d.) per oke. The oke is 2⅘ pounds weight. I certainly could not accept the view that this increase, which has not been discontinued, was the cause of the recent disturbances.

Mr. McGOVERN: Are any of these deportations for life or is any limit put upon them?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think that I have answered that question. I said that the deportation order states that the person in question must leave the island and remain outside the territory thereafter.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Are any of these cases subject to appeal or at any rate to review at any particular time?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The action of the Governor is subject to review by the Secretary of State.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Has not the time come when the right hon. Gentleman can definitely lay papers, so that Members will be able to review these happenings in Cyprus?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think so, but I will consider that matter. The House has been very fully informed on this subject. A number of official communiques were issued almost from day to day and the very day after Parliament reassembled I gave a very full answer supplementing them. I gave all the information that I could as to what had taken place on that occasion, and I have answered questions since. I doubt whether the laying of papers would add anything to the information that has been given.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS (SHIP PASSAGES).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will issue a statement showing the number of cases during the present year
in which Colonial Government officials proceeding on duty to and from this country have taken passage in foreign-owned vessels?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The number of Colonial Government officials who have proceeded on duty from this country since the 1st of January, 1931, and whose passages have been arranged in foreign-owned vessels is 121 out of a total of 4,730. I regret that it would not be possible to furnish statistics regarding homeward passages without considerable research and reference to all the Colonial Governments.

Captain MACDONALD: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that British vessels are available for such passages in the case of Colonial officials?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is the practice. It is understood that wherever a British vessel is available Colonial officials proceeding home on leave will travel by them.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIES (FINANCE).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the names of those Colonies which during the current year are able to show a surplus on their revenue; the names of those which cannot show such a surplus and the amount of deficit in each case; and whether he proposes to take in hand each of the latter Colonies in turn to see whether, by expert advice and better management of their resources, it is possible to place them at an early date on a sound financial footing?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not yet in a position to say what will be the final figure of revenue and expenditure in the different Colonies when the present financial year comes to an end; but the financial position of all the Colonies has been, and is still, receiving my closest attention and in certain cases financial commissions have been appointed to advise in what way expenditure can be reduced.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

RUBBER INDUSTRY.

Captain SHAW: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the uneconomic price ruling for rubber, and the consequent effect on the revenue of all Governments concerned, he is prepared to institute negotiations with the Dutch Government and the British Dominions interested in the production of this commodity, with a view to arriving at some means by which the output will be restricted?

Mr. BOOTHBY: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to impose any restrictions upon the output and export of rubber in the British Empire?

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what measures the Governments of Malaya and Ceylon propose to take to assist the rubber industry; and what progress, if any, has been made with negotiations between them or between the Government in the United Kingdom and the Dutch authorities?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No measures have been proposed by the Governments of Malaya or Ceylon. I understand that some informal discussions have taken place between various interests concerned. While I should welcome an effective scheme which would improve the position of the industry, in my opinion any such scheme must be comprehensive in the area covered, administratively practicable and effective for the purpose of co-ordinating supply and demand.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Is it not a fact that unless some control over the production of rubber is re-established this industry is likely to be ruined; and is the right hon. Gentleman in touch with the rubber companies or the Dutch Government on this question?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should welcome a scheme, but I am quite sure that a scheme to be effective must be complete in the way I have mentioned.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the Colonial Secretary bear in mind the complete and disastrous failure of the Stevenson scheme on the same lines?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not want to go back on the past. I have already said that it is essential that the scheme should be comprehensive in the area covered.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does it include the Dutch?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes.

IMPORTS.

Sir BASIL PETO: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that during the last 12 months three-quarters of the firms engaged in the furniture manufacturing industry of this country have been working on short time, and that one firm which had recently laid out a special plant at Slough to compete with the import of Italian furniture produce found it impossible to carry on business and has closed down the works; and whether, in view of the effect of furniture imports upon employment in this country, it is intended to include furniture generally in the list of imported goods which are to be subject to duty?

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in view of the fact that the object of the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act is to promote production in this country, and that the imports of iron and steel amount to approximately £24,000,000, he will consider the immediate inclusion of iron and steel in the schedule of goods to which an order under the Act shall apply?

Major MILNER: 56.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that by putting a duty on imported woollen tissues without a corresponding duty on all women's wearing apparel made from such tissues he has not only neutralised any advantage to the piece goods industries but has also encouraged the importation of made-up garments, to the detriment of the manufacturers and workers in the clothing industry in the West Riding and elsewhere; and, as the matter is urgent, will he state what action he proposes to take?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I hope hon. Members will realise that it would not be proper to make any statement as to what goods
may or may not be included in any subsequent Orders made under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act.

Sir B. PETO: Will the hon. Gentleman call the attention of his right hon. Friend to the facts stated in my question, and will he give special consideration to the furniture manufacturing trade when considering what further list of import duties will be imposed?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My right hon. Friend's attention has already been called to the facts in this question and I cannot go further than the answer I have given.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Could the hon. Gentleman tell the House now whether he has evidence with regard to the iron and steel trade for the last four weeks?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

Mr. O'CONNOR: 50.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total imports of lace for October, 1929, 1930 and 1931, respectively, and for the first three weeks of the months of November, 1930 and 1931?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The total value of the imports of lace of all kinds, including embroidery on net or dissoluble fabric but excluding lace forming part of made-up goods, during the month of October, 1929, 1930 and 1931, amounted to £60,500, £48,100 and £36,700, respectively. Except as regards lace of silk and artificial silk, the figures for October, 1930 and 1931, exclude the imports by parcel post. Goods passing in transit through the United Kingdom are included in the records of imports except in the case of goods transhipped under bond. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the reply given yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Herbert).

51. Mr. O'CONNOR: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the large quantities of lace which are being imported into this country by means of the parcels post, thereby nullifying for purposes of comparison the official import figures, he will institute a special census for a limited period of lace imports through the parcels post?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): I have been asked to reply. There is no ready means of obtaining such a census as my hon. and learned Friend desires, and to make special arrangements for sorting out parcels containing lace from other parcels and taking an account of their contents would involve an amount of labour, expense and postal congestion which I could not justify.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Has my hon. Friend any doubt that there is substantial importation of lace going on through the parcels post?

Major ELLIOT: I had an opportunity of seeing the figures the hon. Member sent to the Board of Trade, which seemed to indicate that, at any rate so far as those figures were concerned.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Is it not a fact that before the Safeguarding Duty on lace was imposed such a census was in fact taken by the Post Office, and therefore could not a similar census be taken now?

Major ELLIOT: I think that ray hon. and learned Friend will agree that to begin such a census before the Christmas mails would very probably produce great congestion in the postal services.

Miss HORSBRUGH: 52 and 53.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the area and value of jute carpets imported during each of the following periods: month of October, 1931, 1st to 19th November, 1931, and 11th to 20th November, 1931; and
(2) the weight of flax line and tow yarns and hemp line and tow yarns imported during the periods 1st November to 10th November, 1931, and 11th November to 20th November, 1931?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The total imports of jute carpets and rugs into the United Kingdom registered during the month of October, 1931, amounted to 418,263 square yards, valued at £41,893. As regards imports during broken periods of the month I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Herbert).

RUSSIA.

Mr. BOOTHBY: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether His Majesty's Government will consider the
possibility of substituting a commercial treaty based on the principle of barter for the present trade agreement with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

Major COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies which I gave on Monday last to questions asked by my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham East (Sir A. Pownall) and Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) copies of which I am sending to him.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that, although the Soviet Government has had a favourable trade balance against this country of £20,000,000 a year for some years past, it has refused to purchase a single barrel of cured herrings this year, and, in considering this question, will he bear in mind the special claims of the herring fishing industry?

Major COLVILLE: I can assure my hon. Friend that the claims of the herring industry will not be lost sight of.

ABNORMAL IMPORTS (CUSTOMS DUTIES).

Mr. J. JONES: 54.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make provision for the circulation to Members of a copy of each order issued under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act; and if he will arrange for the issue with each Order of an explanatory memorandum giving details of the abnormal importations which warrant the imposition of such duty as may be imposed?

Mr. THORNE: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he intends to publish a White Paper periodically showing the various imported articles and the amount of duties to be imposed?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Copies of the Abnormal Importations Orders will be available at the Vote Office. My right hon. Friend has already undertaken to circulate a statement giving information in regard to the importations covered by the Order of the 20th November.

Mr. JONES: Can the hon. Gentleman say when we are to have this information provided?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The House has already been informed that in the course of this week some further figures will be provided.

COMMERCIAL TREATIES.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 57.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the period of notice which must be given to denounce any of the commercial treaties which already exist between Great Britain and 36 other countries; and whether it is contemplated to take an early opportunity of denouncing any of them, and, if so, which, in view of further fiscal proposals by Great Britain in the coming year?

Major COLVILLE: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving particulars with regard to termination in the case of each of the treaties and other similar arrangements which provide for the mutual accord of most-favoured-nation treatment in regard to Customs duties. These treaties number 42 in all. The period of notice which is necessary is not the same in every case. As regards the second part of the question, the international obligations of this country in the matter of trade and commerce represent one aspect of the question of the trade balance which is under review by the Government.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether any treaties have yet been denounced?

Major COLVILLE: No treaty has yet been denounced. The matter is under review.

Following is the table:

TABLE showing the Countries with which Commercial Treaties and similar arrangements providing for the mutual accord of Most-favourednation Treatment in regard to Customs Duties have been concluded by this Country, and the required particulars with regard to termination.

Country and when Terminable.

Albania—At any time on three months' notice.
Argentina—No provision for termination. Austria—11th February, 1935, or thereafter, on 12 months' notice.
Belgium—At any time on three months' notice.
Bolivia—At any time on 12 months' notice.

Country and when Terminable.

Brazil—11th September, 1934, or thereafter on six months' notice.
Bulgaria—At any time on three months' notice.
Chile—At any time on 15 days' notice.
China—No provision for termination.
Colombia—At any time on 12 months' notice.
Czechoslovakia—At any time on 12 months' notice.
Denmark—No provision for termination.
Egypt—16th February, 1932.
Estonia—At any time on 12 months' notice.
Finland—At any time on six months' notice.
Germany—At any time on 12 months' notice.
Greece—At any time on 12 months' notice.
Guatemala—At any time on 12 months' notice.
Hayti—At any time on six months' notice.
Hungary—26th July, 1937, or thereafter, on 12 months' notice.
Italy—At any time on 12 months' notice.
Japan—29th July, 1932, or thereafter, on 12 months' notice.
Latvia—At any time on 12 months' notice.
Lithuania—At any time on three months' notice.
Netherlands—At any time on 12 months' notice.
Nicaragua—At any time on 12 months' notice.
Norway—At any time on 12 months' notice.
Panama—8th April, 1939, or thereafter, on 12 months' notice.
Persia—Provisionally in force. If and when ratified it will be possible to terminate the Treaty on 10th May, 1936, or thereafter, on six months' notice.
Poland—At any time on three months' notice.
Portugal—At any time on 12 months' notice.
*Rumania—12th May, 1934, or thereafter, on six months' notice.
Salvador—15th September, 1932, unless previously rejected by the Salvadorean Legislative Assembly.
Siam—30th May, 1936, or thereafter, on 12 months' notice.

Country and when Terminable.

Spain—At any time on three months' notice.
Sweden—At any time on 12 months' notice.
Switzerland—At any time on 12 months' notice.
Turkey—3rd September, 1935, or thereafter, on 12 months' notice.
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—
At any time on six months' notice.
United States—At any time on 12 months' notice.
Venezuela—No provision for termination.
Yugoslavia—9th February, 1933, or thereafter, on 12 months' notice.

*May be terminated by Rumania at any time after 12th May, 1932, on six months' notice in the event of duties being imposed in the United Kingdom on Rumanian agricultural products.

IMPORT DITTIES, FRANCE (BRITISH GOODS).

Mr. LAWSON (for Mr. THORNE): 41.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the increased percentage of duties on British goods imported into France during the four weeks ending 21st November, 1931?

Major COLVILLE: By a decree published on 14th November an additional duty of 15 per cent. ad valorem was imposed on all United Kingdom goods, with certain exceptions, particulars of which were published in the "Board of Trade Journal" for 19th November. The only other increases in French customs duties during the period in question were those on rubber goods imposed by a decree published on 10th November. Details will be found in the same number of the "Board of Trade Journal."

Mr. LAWSON (for Mr. THORNE): 55.
asked the President of the Board of Trade from what date the 15 per cent. surtax imposed on British coal imported into France came into operation?

Major COLVILLE: The decree was promulgated on 14th November and the surtax came into force in Paris on the 16th November and elsewhere in France on the 17th. There is, however, a pro- vision in the decree exempting from the surtax goods proved to have been shipped direct to France before the promulgation of the decree.

Mr. LAWSON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the Government are taking any steps in regard to the matter? Have any negotiations taken place?

Major COLVILLE,: Yes. I may say that representation has been made to the French Government in this matter, and I would also remind the House that we are not without power for dealing with a situation of this kind.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether, when the Polish exchange went down, there was any surtax placed by the French authorities upon Polish coal?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

FLYING BOAT STATION, PEMBROKE.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: 16.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that pollution has been encountered in. the water supply of the Royal Air Force Station, Pembroke; and if such pollution has now been overcome?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): Yes, Sir, and, in reply to the second part of the question, I am glad to say that the pollution has now been overcome.

Captain BALFOUR: 17.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of Royal Air Force personnel stationed at the flying-boat station, Pembroke, and what number of flying boats are stationed there?

Sir P. SASSOON: There are seven officers and 85 airmen of the Royal Air Force at present stationed at Pembroke Dock; the number of flying boats stationed there is four.

AIRSHIPS (R 100).

Mr. PERKINS: 18.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can state the total cost of the R 100 and the sum realised from the sale of the ship?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 19.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what was the total expended by the nation on the airship R 100; what price has been obtained for the sale of this ship; and whether the
Government intend to continue further experiments and construction of airships?

Mr. WELLS: 22.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will state the price obtained for the airship R 100; and if the purchasers will break up and remove the airship from Cardington?

Sir P. SASSOON: The cost a the R 100 may be put at £363,000, exclusive of the cost of the flight to Canada and back, other experimental flights and subsequent maintenance charges. As regards the sum to be realised from its sale, while it is not customary to disclose contract prices, there would, of course, in view of the exceptional circumstances, be no Departmental objection to so doing. The contractors have, however, requested, for ordinary commercial reasons, that the price shall not be disclosed. This request is clearly reasonable and my Noble Friend would prefer to make no statement on the subject for the present, though he will take steps to inform the House of the precise amount in due course. I may, however, say that the vessel has been sold to be broken up at Cardington as scrap, exclusive of the engines and one bay (which latter is being retained for experimental purposes) and that the price obtained naturally represents only a fraction of the original cost. As regards future airship policy, I would refer the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) to the Prime Minister's statement of the 11th September last on the Second Reading of the National Economy Bill.

Mr. WELLS: Will the purchasers break up this ship at Cardington and will they use labour from the locality?

Sir P. SASSOON: I believe that at least 75 per cent. of Cardington men will he employed.

Mr. WELLS: Was this ship offered for sale to any Government overseas before it was decided to scrap it?

Sir P. SASSOON: I could not answer that question without notice.

Captain BALFOUR: May we take it that the sale of this ship was by competitive tender and that the highest price was taken?

Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, Sir.

ACCIDENTS.

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air, whether with a view to reducing the number of accidents to Royal Air Force machines, he will consider the advisability of setting up at the Air Ministry an engineering and technical organisation, similar in nature to such organisations possessed by His Majesty's Army and Navy, and under an engineer-in-chief who shall be a member of the Air Council, together with a class of officers specialised in aeronautical engineering from an early age?

Sir P. SASSOON: It is the considered policy of the Air Ministry not to set up a separate engineering organisation on the lines suggested in the hon. and gallant Member's question on grounds which it is impossible to state concisely within the limits of a Parliamentary reply. I may, however, point out that engineering duties in the Royal Air Force are performed by officers who have specialised at an early stage of their career. My noble Friend sees no reason to depart from that policy, which has been justified by the progressive improvement over the past decade in the number of fatal accidents in relation to the amount of flying carried out by the Royal Air Force. I may add that there is no evidence that the institution of such an organisation would reduce the number of accidents, only a small proportion of which are due to mechanical failure.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

FLYING REGULATIONS, LONDON.

Mr. CROSSLEY: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air, whether his attention has been drawn to the recent increase in the number of aeroplanes flying over the city and county of London, with consequent danger to life and nuisance from noise; and whether he will consider taking steps to remedy the matter?

Sir P. SASSOON: From inquiries which I have made I am advised that there has been no increase such as is suggested in my hon. Friend's question. I should add, as has previously been stated in the House, that there are regulations in force against irregular and
dangerous flying and that breaches of these regulations are, and will continue to be, strictly dealt with.

EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT.

Captain BALFOUR: 23.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if the need for retrenchment as affecting Air Ministry expenditure will cancel entirely or delay the commencement of the construction of any new types of civil aircraft which the Ministry had proposed to order for experimental and development purposes during the current financial year?

Sir P. SASSOON: As a result of the recommendations of the Committee on National Expenditure it has been decided that it is not practicable in present circumstances to proceed with the two experimental types of civil aircraft which formed the new programme for 1931, or with the amphibian type seaplane included in the programme of the previous year. A large experimental flying boat, which was already on order, is, however, being proceeded with and other proposals consistent with the need for curtailing expenditure to a minimum are under consideration.

Captain BALFOUR: Has there been a greater measure of economy on the development of civil aviation than on the development of the Service aviation side?

Sir P. SASSOON: No, I would not say so.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Is it not a matter of economy and also of material efficiency to go on experimenting and is it not false economy to stop building experimental machines?

Sir P. SASSOON: We are going on experimenting.

Mr. M. JONES: Is there no need for retrenchment on military aircraft?

Sir P. SASSOON: That does not arise out of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

NORTH LONDON.

Colonel GOODMAN: 24.
asked the Minister of Transport what progress is
being made with schemes for railway and tube extensions and transport improvements generally in North London; what number of persons is at present employed on such schemes; and to what extent preference is given to persons resident in North London?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): The London Electric Railway Company are extending their line northwards from Finsbury Park, and expect to open part of this extension during next year. The Metropolitan Railway Company are constructing a new branch line from Wembley Park to Stanmore, widening their line between Wembley Park and Harrow, and carrying out other improvements which they expect to complete during next year. I understand from the companies that about 2,000 men are directly employed on these works. Vacancies notified to the Exchanges are generally speaking filled by men resident in the district, but I have no information as to the extent to which this preference applies to the staff as a whole.

Colonel GOODMAN: Will the hon. Gentleman use his influence to see that, as far as possible preference shall be given to local workmen?

Mr. PYBUS: Part of the bargain with the railway companies was that, the Ministry of Labour should be consulted, with a view to employing as much local labour as possible.

Mr. HARRIS: Is the hon. Gentleman really bringing pressure to bear upon the London and North Eastern Railway Company to carry out improvements at Liverpool Street Station, as recommended by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs when he was Lord Privy Seal?

LOCAL OMNIBUS SERVICES.

Earl CASTLE STEWART: 25.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the reduction of fares below an economic level by the larger omnibus combines is driving many small omnibus proprietors out of business, particularly in the villages; and whether, in view of the hardship inflicted on villages by the closing of local garages and by the curtailment of local omnibus services, he will take steps to safeguard the interests of village omnibus proprietors?

Mr. PYBUS: The licensing of road passenger services is a matter for the Traffic Commissioners set up under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and I have no jurisdiction in regard to any particular case, except on appeal being made to me under the provisions of the Act. It is open to any operators, whether large or small, to make representations to the Commissioners that they are being unfairly undercut by their competitors and I understand that the charging of uneconomic fares is a matter often argued before them. I am not aware of any general position such as my Noble Friend indicates, but I may inform him that the Commissioners are specifically empowered to attach to road service licences granted by them conditions as to the fares to be charged, so as to secure, amongst other things, that the fares shall not be unreasonable and that, where desirable in the public interest, they should be so fixed as to prevent uneconomic competition. I should have regard to the same consideration if the point was before me in connection with an appeal.

ROAD AND BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION, SCOTLAND.

Mr. TRAIN: 26.
asked the Minister of Transport how many suggested or proposed schemes in Scotland for road and bridge construction and improvement have been abandoned since August last; and what is the estimated amount of money involved?

Mr. PYBUS: In order to reduce expenditure from the Road Fund the resources of which have been heavily overcommitted, it has been necessary to review schemes of road and bridge construction and improvement in Scotland, as in the rest of Great Britain. I have in all cases proceeded after consultation with the local authorities concerned, and, while my survey of the position is still incomplete, I have arranged up to the present for a reduction in the commitments of the Road Fund in Scotland in respect of an estimated total expenditure of approximately £700,000. Of the saving thus secured, about £520,000 will inure to the advantage of the Road Fund, and the balance to that of the local authorities concerned. In some cases it has been possible to postpone work altogether; in other cases schemes have been curtailed, but care has been taken to
ensure, so far as practicable, that the work carried out forms in itself a useful improvement to the highway system.

Mr. TRAIN: Have all these schemes been suggested by my hon. Friend or by his Department, or has there been any suggestion from the local authorities in question?

Mr. PYBUS: In the majority of cases, I am happy to say, the curtailment of schemes has been carried out with complete agreement between the local authorities and my Department.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many men will be affected by this saving of £700,000—how many men will lose work or not be started in work?

Mr. PYBUS: I must have notice of that question.

ROAD ACCIDENTS, MITCHAM.

Mr. MELLER: 27.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the petition sent to him from residents in Mitcham with respect to a series of accidents which have occurred in the London Road, Mitcham, between Fair Green and Streatham Lane; and what steps he proposes to take to mitigate the danger to persons using this road?

Mr. PYBUS: I have received a copy of the petition referred to, and am very carefully considering whether any measures could be adopted to reduce the danger to persons using this section of the London Road, Mitcham.

LONDON-LEPTON PASSENGER SERVICE (OVERCROWDING).

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: 31.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the overcrowding in the late afternoon and early evening trains from Liverpool Street Station, London, to Leyton on the North Eastern Railway service; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this matter?

Mr. PYBUS: I am communicating my hon. Friend's representations to the railway company, and will let him know the result.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Will that be done immediately?

Mr. PYBUS: As soon as we receive the answer from the railway company.

MOTOR LICENCES.

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 32.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the fact that, as Good Friday falls this year on the 25th March, the opening date for the second quarter of the year for vehicle licensing, owners of all forms of transport who invariably use their vehicles on the Thursday preceding Good Friday will not now be able to do so without first paying a full month's licence for one day's use of the vehicle; and whether, under these circumstances, he will take steps to secure some relaxation of the existing regulations whereby the operator may obtain his licence for the second quarter of the year on the 24th March instead of on the 25th March as now obtaining?

Mr. PYBUS: I am aware of the position, and have the matter under consideration in conjunction with the Treasury.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Was not the date for the licensing of all motor vehicles so arranged in order that people should not have to take out a licence specially for that holiday; and will not people be placed in that difficulty this year, since the date happens to fall on Good Friday?

Mr. PYBUS: This question of the date of Easter arises about every 10 years, and, as I have said, we are considering the matter in conjunction with the Treasury.

Mr. PERKINS: 23.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that there are a large number of motor car and motor cycle owners who take out licences for a few months only; and whether ho will consider the possibility of issuing week-end motor-car and motorcycle licences to meet this demand?

Mr. PYBUS: I have carefully considered my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I do not think that the complications which would arise from the institution of week-end licences could be justified. I would, however, remind the hon. Gentleman that it is already possible by means of the part year licensing system, in conjunction with the payment of refunds on surrendered licences, to obtain what is virtually a monthly licence.

ROAD SERVICE LICENCES.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 33.
asked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the fact that owing to the refusal of the traffic commissioner for the southern area, supported on appeal by the Ministry of Transport, of a licence to the Premier line of omnibuses to run a service from Maidenhead Bridge to Windsor Hospital, many residents in the growing district of Cippenham are only able to reach Slough by making long detours and at increased expense, he will have further inquiries made into the matter?

Mr. PYBUS: On the 13th August last, my predecessor, on appeal, upheld the traffic commissioners for the southern area in their refusal to grant an application by the Premier Line, Limited, for a road service licence in respect of a service between Maidenhead Bridge and Windsor. Since that date the company have made a further application for a licence in respect of this service, which the commissioners have refused. The company have exercised their right of appeal to me in this matter, and that appeal is under consideration.

Major BRAITHWAITE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is not an isolated case, but that in many villages all over the country the same thing is happening, and village services are going out altogether on account of the Order which has been made by his Department?

Sir A. KNOX: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the case of this village of Cippenham, which has 3,000 inhabitants who are absolutely cut off from Slough and Maidenhead except at a cost of 6d., whereas the Premier omnibus service was giving a 10-minute service at a cost of ld; and is he aware that a state of great discontent exists about the matter?

Mr. PYBUS: This matter is now the subject of an appeal to me, and it would be improper for me to discuss it across the Floor of the House.

Sir A. KNOX: Is there not some means of countering this Socialistic measure?

Sir A. KNOX: 34.
asked the Minister of Transport on what grounds the Traffic
Commissioner for the southern area has refused the application of Mr. A. E. Warwick to continue his service of motor-omnibuses from Farnham Common to Windsor, since this working man was the first to establish a through service on this route, and his service had given general satisfaction and had four months' priority to the Owen omnibus service, six months' priority to the Amersham and District Traction Company, and 12 months' priority to the London General Omnibus Company, to all of whom licences have been granted?

Mr. PYBUS: The Traffic Commissioners' decision in this case was to grant a licence for a service between Farnham Common and Slough. The matter was the subject of an appeal to me, and, in their observations on the appeal, which were communicated to the appellant, the Commissioners expressed the view on the merits of the service that, while a service between Farnham Common and Slough was reasonable, any extension beyond Slough was not necessary and not required by the public. They also stated that the road between Slough and Windsor was congested and amply served by other companies. I fail to understand the relevance of the reference to two of the three companies mentioned in the latter part of the question, seeing that the grounds given by the appellant for his appeal make it clear that the through service supplied by the Amersham and District Traction Company between High Wycombe and Windsor, passing through Farnham Common, is the only one covering the route applied for by Mr. Warwick.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind, in considering these appeals, the fact that many of these businesses which are now being carried on are the property of ex-service men, who have sunk the whole of their savings in them?

Mr. PYBUS: I am devoting a great amount of time to the examination of these appeals, and I assure the House that I am not overlooking the cases of the small or ex-service men.

Sir A. KNOX: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Warwick is an ex service man, that he was the first on this route, that he has put all his little
capital into this business, and that he is only a working man and will be absolutely ruined by this decision?

Mr. J. JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that thousands of ex-service men in London are being sent to penal colonies—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Anstruther-Gray.

GLASGOW-EDINBURGH ROAD SCHEME.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 35 and 36.
asked the Minister of Transport (1) what was the original time estimated for the construction of the new Glasgow-Edinburgh road; how long it has been under construction; and when he anticipates that it will be completed;
(2) what was the original estimate of the cost of the new Glasgow-Edinburgh road; and what is the actual cost up to date, including departmental expenses?

Mr. PYBUS: No definite estimate of the time required for the construction of the Glasgow-Edinburgh Road was prepared. Work was started in August, 1924, and will be completed next year. Important sections of the road have been open for a considerable time, and practically the whole of the route is now available for traffic. The original estimate for the work was £2,115,000; the revised estimate is about. £2,360,000. The total cost to date is about £2,000,000.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Could tike bon. Gentleman tell me how much of the £2,360,000 is payment for the land?

Mr. PYBUS: I should have to have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEVERN BARRAGE SCHEME.

Dr. WORTHINGTON: 30.
asked the Minister of Transport if, when considering the report of the Committee on the Severn River Barrage, he will, before giving his assent to that scheme, cause an inquiry to be made by the Electricity Commissioners into the desirability of making the fullest possible use of the adjacent source of power in the coal measures of the Forest of Dean in order to reduce the unemployment in that area?

Mr. PYBUS: I have noted my hon. Friend's request for consideration in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

CLOCK.

Miss RATHBONE: 37.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if he will arrange to have a clock placed on the Gallery above the Speaker's Chair in such a position that Members, while speaking, may be able to observe the flight of time without turning their backs on the Chair?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): In view of the many necessary services which have had to be curtailed owing to lack of funds, I do not feel that expenditure on the provision of a second clock in this Chamber would be justified.

Miss RATHBONE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think the saving of expense in the lighting and heating of the, Chamber due to curtailment of speeches would more than pay the cost of the clock?

MEMBERS (RAILWAY VOUCHERS).

Mr. MALLALIEU: 48.
asked the Prime Minister, if, in view of the need for national economy and the desirability of this House setting an example in that regard, he will give time before the House rises for the discussion of the question of limiting travel facilities enjoyed by Members to the provision of third-class tickets?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement on this subject which was made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 17th November in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton).

Mr. M. JONES: Seeing that the overwhelming majority of Members are committed to economy, could not the total value of the economy be achieved by voluntary effort?

The PRIME MINISTER: I commend that to the House.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Seeing that there are more rich men in this House than in the last Parliament—

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Buchanan.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND (BOARDED-OUT CHILDREN).

Mr. McGOVERN: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children are boarded out in Scotland; and what is the average weekly cost of each child?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): At 31st December, 1930, a total of 7,150 children were boarded-out by Poor Law authorities in 'Scotland and the average weekly cost of maintenance during the year ended the same day was 8s. 4¾. per child. The total includes 6,185 who are boarded with guardians and 965 who are inmates of institutions, such as children's homes and orphanages.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Has it not dawned on the Under-Secretary that, if it costs 8s. 4¾d. to maintain a child, they should give more than 2s. to the parent who maintains a child when the parent is unemployed?

Mr. SKELTON: I am sure the hon. Member will realise that it is in the hands of the public assistance authorities to say what scale of maintenance shall be given. I am sure he is also well aware that the Secretary of State has no power to issue general regulations which would control the public assistance authorities in such a matter.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I did not say the Secretary of State. I am drawing the attention of the House to the fact that it costs 8s.—

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SHIPS (ALIEN SEAMEN).

Mr. LOGAN: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is 'aware that the steamship "Teiresias" sailed from Birkenhead on 25th July, 1931, and on 4th September, 1931, at Shanghai, discharged five British seamen at £9 10s. per month and engaged five Chinamen at £4 10s. per month in their places; that the five British seamen, characters and ability very good, were sent home on the steamship "Laomedon" on 5th September, 1931, and landed in Birkenhead on 25th October, 1931, and that these men are now unemployed; and what action
does he intend to take to protect British seamen on British ships from being displaced by foreign labour?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Five ratings in the stewards' department of the steamship "Teiresias" were discharged at Shanghai on 4th September, 1931, and were engaged on the steamship "Laomedon" on the 5th September at unaltered monthly rates of pay, namely, £9 10s., £8 Ss., £5, and in two cases £3. These men were discharged on the completion of the voyage of the last-mentioned ship at Birkenhead on the 25th October, having received very good reports for ability and general conduct from the masters of both ships. I have no information as to whether these men are now unemployed, nor as to the engagement of Chinese stewards at £4 10s. per month in their places on the "Teiresias."

Mr. LOGAN: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to take up with the shipping company the facts I have narrated, which are absolutely verified?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I hope the hon. Member realises that the Board of Trade has no power in the matter.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Did the hon. Gentleman make any inquiry from the shipping company to see whether the facts stated in the question were true, and, if true, will he make representations to them that it is not in the interests of British workmen that this should be done?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My right hon. Friend stated yesterday that he would do everything in his power to secure that British employment has preference over foreign employment. Beyond making that statement I cannot go any further.

Mr. BUCHANAN: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give someone else a chance.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIGHTING SERVICES (MEAT AND WHEAT SUPPLIES).

Mr. SMITHERS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to make any announcement before the House adjourns for the Christmas Recess
with regard to the proposals to insist upon the purchase by the defence Services of British meat and wheat?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 16th November in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Wedderburn).

Mr. SMITHERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman still remember that the agricultural industry is anxiously awaiting a decision?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (GOVERNMENT POLICY).

Mr. BRACKEN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can give the House an undertaking that no statement of His Majesty's Government's future policy in India shall be given to the delegates to the Round Table Conferences or elsewhere until the approval of Parliament has been obtained?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.

Mr.BRACKEN: In view of the character of the Prime Minister's answer, beg to give notice that I shall raise the question on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (BOARD OF TRADE).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 49.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total increase of his staff which has arisen from the Act dealing with dumping?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Departmental work incidental to the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act has so far involved no increase in the staff of the Board of Trade.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Seeing that there has been some increase of work, may I assume that the staff before this were underworked?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No. The hon. Member may assume that they are now overworked.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the Board of Trade consider that it is undesirable, at a time when there are so many unemployed, that any should, be working overtime?

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW RELIEF (WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION).

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: 58.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to issue regulations to the public assistance committees to treat the compensation paid to injured workmen, who make application for public assistance, in the same way as they treat the health insurance benefits?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): No, Sir. I have no legal power to issue such an instruction.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

Sir F. SANDERSON: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that, under the provisions of the Budget introduced in September last for purposes of Income Tax assessment, the personal allowance for a married man has been reduced by £75 whereas the personal allowance for a single man has been reduced by £35 only, he will consider in his next Budget amending the reduction of allowances imposed upon a married man to an amount not exceeding £70, in order to bring it into line with the reduction of £35 for a single man?

Major ELLIOT: The question raised by my hon. Friend would be one for consideration in connection with next year's Budget as to which, as he will appreciate, I cannot make any anticipatory statement.

Sir F. SANDERSON: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that a large number of persons, including the whole of the teaching profession, have suffered cuts in salary during the year ending 5th April, 1932, and being assessed upon the previous year's higher income but at the higher rates of tax and lower allowances prevailing under the national Budget for the year ending 5th April, 1932, will virtually be paying the increased Income Tax upon amounts they have never received and are not likely ever to receive, he will consider including such cases under Note IV of the assessment form by which special applications for adjustment may be preferred, so that such persons may be
assessed on the amount of their emoluments for the year ending 5th April, 1932?

Major ELLIOT: The law definitely requires that, except in the commencing and ending years of the employment, assessments to Income Tax under Schedule E shall be based on the emoluments of the preceding year, and I have no power to authorise a departure from the legal basis.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

LEYTON.

Sir W. SUGDEN: 63.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will issue instructions to the group officers and dealing, amongst other districts, with the unemployed in Leyton, Essex, that exact details be made available for the assistance of Leyton employés and other persons interested in finding such employment, particularly for those in their own town?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I regret I do not quite understand the point which my lion. Friend has in mind. Perhaps he will be good enough to speak to me or to my right hon. Friend.

Sir W. SUGDEN: 67.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will have some alteration at small cost made to the structure at Leyton, to enable the unemployed queues to be under shelter whilst awaiting the attention of his local officials?

Mr. HUDSON: At the Leyton exchange, as elsewhere, a timing system is arranged in order to avoid undue waiting. I am assured that if applicants attending the Leyton exchange would observe the timing system there should be no need for them to wait outside the building.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Does not my hon. Friend know that the structure is such an obsolete and archaic sort of building that unless something is done there will be difficulties in regard to the condition of the health of the men themselves?

Mr. HUDSON: I think that if the men would observe the time arrangements there would be no need to wait outside because there is room inside. What happens is that they come before their time and have to wait outside.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Will my hon. Friend do me the honour of paying a visit there so as to see for himself the general conditions which obtain at the Leyton employment exchange?

SOUTHAMPTON.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: 64 and 65.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) the total number of married women in Southampton who have had their cases reviewed under the Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act, 1931, and the total refused benefit; and
(2) how many men and women have been called before the courts of referees under the Anomalies Act at the Employment Exchange in Southampton up to the 16th November; and what is the number in each case who have been refused further benefit?

STATISTICS of cases considered by Courts of Referees are compiled monthly and the latest available figures relate to the period ended 9th November, 1931. The following Table shows the number of cases considered by the Southampton Court of Referees*under the Anomalies Regulations up to that date. There were no cases under classes (a) and (c), and all the cases considered related to women.

Class of person (Section 1 (2) Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act, 1931).
Total considered.
Cases allowed.
Cases disallowed.


(b) Seasonal workers
…
…
…
4
—
4


(d) Married women
…
…
…
169
28
141


Total
…
…
…
173
28
145


* Claims are referred to this Court of Referees from the following Employment Exchanges:—


Southampton, Eastleigh, Hythe, Lymington, Lyndhurst, Romsey and Woolston.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: 66.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of workers transferred from depressed areas to Southampton during the past three years; and whether this transference has now ceased?

Mr. HUDSON: I am having inquiries made and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIVISION No. 19.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am informed that there was an error in the announcement of the figures of one of the Divisions yesterday. Perhaps the Tellers will come to the Table.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE and Sir JOHN WITHERS (being come to the Table)—

Mr. SHAKESPEARE (Lord of the Treasury): I beg to report that in the

Mr. HUDSON: As the reply in-eludes a table of figures I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the percentage of married women refused benefit is in any way approximate to the figure which has appeared in Birmingham?

Mr. HUDSON: I should have to have notice of that question.

Mr. MAXTON: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House roughly whether it amounts to tens, hundreds or thousands?

Mr. HUDSON: The total number of married women and seasonal workers considered was 173 at Southampton, and 145 cases were disallowed.

Following is the statement:

10.5 p.m. Division last night, I inadvertently reported that the figures in the "No" Lobby were 350. The correct number was 360.

Sir JOHN WITHERS: I concur in that statement.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER directed the Clerk to correct the number in the Journal accordingly: Ayes, 50; Noes, 360.

Oral Answers to Questions — SELECTION (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON: reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Chairmen's Panel: Mr. Duncan Graham; and had appointed in substitution: Sir William Jenkins.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — INDIAN PAY (TEMPORARY ABATEMENTS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
It was once said by a small boy of Dr. Temple, when he was headmaster of Rugby, that he was a beast, but a just beast. The best that can be said of this Bill, and I hope the worst also, is that it is a just beast. Nothing could be more distasteful to me, and I believe that nothing could be more distasteful to any Member of this House, than to be discussing proposals to cut the salaries of so splendid a body of men as the Indian public servants. There is no finer body of public servants anywhere in the world than the men who make that great company of administrators in India, Indian as well as British. There is no greater service that the British Empire has conferred upon India than the creation of this service, which for impartiality, for efficiency and for expert knowledge is surpassed by no other public service in any part of the world. Nothing short of a great national emergency, nothing short of an acute financial crisis would justify me in introducing a Bill of this kind or would justify the House of Commons in passing it. Unfortunately, India is passing through much the same financial crisis as that which has been facing this country and most other countries. In India, no less than in Great Britain, there is a very serious deficiency on the annual Budget. If we compare like with like, the deficiency on the Indian Budget is about as great as the deficiency with which we were faced a few months ago.
Of course, Indian expenditure is a great deal less than our expenditure. A deficiency of no less than £29,000,000 over a period of two years is an enormous deficiency for India, and proportionately it is as great as the Budget deficiency with which we have had to deal in this country. It is obvious that a deficiency of that kind cannot be allowed to continue in India, any more
than in Great Britain. The Budget this year and next year must be made to balance, and the only way to make it balance is, speaking generally, the way that we have adopted in this country, namely, by heavily increased taxation and by cuts in the salaries of practically all classes of public servants. The Government of India have attempted, and I believe attempted successfully, to hold the balance evenly between these two methods of balancing the Budget. On the one hand, there is heavily increased taxation which, speaking generally, amounts to an increase of 25 per cent, upon the rate of both direct and indirect taxation; on the other hand, the cuts in the salaries of public servants up to a maximum of 10 per cent. The House will see that in the matter of taxation and of salary cuts, the Government of India have tried to keep the balance even.
In order to carry this policy into effect, it is necessary for me to introduce this Bill and for the House to pass it. In India there are several classes of officials. There are the provincial officials, enlisted in the Provinces. There are a certain number of central Indian officials, enlisted by the Government of India, and there is another class of central Indian officials, enlisted upon the guarantee of the Secretary of State. The latter class is divided into two sections. In the first place, there are the all-India officials, who were enlisted by the Secretary of State before the commencement of the Government of India Act, 1919. These officials have a Statutory guarantee, which is given in the Government of India Act of 1919, against cuts in salaries. There is another class, enlisted since 1919, who do not possess that Statutory guarantee. The object of this Bill is to enable the Secretary of State to deal with the comparatively small class, although it is a very important class, who possess the Statutory guarantee, and who were enlisted before the Act of 1919 came into force. The position, in a sentence or two, is this. If it is admitted that there have to be cuts in the salaries of the various Indian servants, it will further be admitted that, in the interests of justice, the cuts must be over all the services. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to exempt from the cuts this one comparatively small section of Indian officials.
Taking central and provincial cuts together they amount to about £6,000,000 a year, a sum so great that without it it would be practically impossible to balance the Budgets. In the saving of £6,000,000 is included the cut of 10 per cent. that is proposed to be made upon the salaries of this small and specially protected class. I am exceedingly sorry to have to make a proposal of this kind. I would much rather not have to come to Parliament to ask hon. Members to give me the power to break what appears to be an agreement—

Mr. BUCHANAN: It is one.

Sir S. HOARE: —and is, in fact, an agreement, entered into in 1919. I would very much have preferred if possible to have a voluntary cut, from this specially protected class. I made the proposal to the Government of India that the cut should be a voluntary cut. I had, as a precedent, the very big voluntary cuts that are being made by such officers as the Viceroy, the Members of the Executive Council, the Provincial Governors and other high officials. I would like to pay my tribute to their patriotism. When we went into the details, which were discussed with the Service Associations in India, it was found that the voluntary cut, in the case of a large number of officials with different salaries, and different conditions, would place some of them in a rather awkward position, giving rise to a feeling of discrimination between one and another. The result was that the services themselves, on the assumption that a cut is necessary, said that they would prefer that the cut should be a statutory, rather than a voluntary, one. That being so, it was incumbent upon me to safeguard them in every possible way.
It is important to note that this is not a Bill repealing any Section in the Government of India Act, which would be a most dangerous procedure for us to adopt, because of the guarantees contained in the Government of India Act. This Bill is an emergency Measure to deal with a particular situation, for a strictly limited period of time, until March, 1933. The time is therefore strictly limited, and the object is strictly limited, namely, to deal with the national financial emergency
with which we are faced, and which we hope will soon pass away, so as to make it possible for those officials to resume their full salaries.
Thirdly, pensions are not included. No officials' pensions will be changed for the worse in any way by this temporary cut for the next 15 months. I ought to explain that classes of public officials are exempted from the cut altogether. We have exempted the lower-paid classes of officials, and certain classes of service for which the standard of pay compares unfavourably with the standard of pay in other services, particularly in the case at the police, which is, admittedly, a very low-paid service. We have exempted all members of that service receiving up to 120 rupees a month, and some above that level. Further, I am asking the House to give the Secretary of State power to deal with certain cases of hardship. It may well be that, when we come to impose this cut, we shall be faced with genuine cases of exceptional hardship. Those cases I wish the Secretary of State to deal with sympathetically, and have power to do what he can to meet them.
Lastly, I want to make it clear to the House that on no account must this Bill be regarded as in any way capitulating to certain politicians in India, the extreme section, who have always looked with suspicion and dislike at the public service, and have constantly, in the past, made attempts to cut down its scale of pay. Nor must it be regarded as an admission by this House that we are indifferent to the claims of the services, or to the splendid work they are carrying out, in the face of great difficulties, not only for the British Empire but particularly for India itself. There is scarcely a field of public activity in India to-day in which the officials, British and Indian, are not exercising really beneficial influence. In India the civil servant is expected to undertake more various duties than the civil servant in Whitehall. A great deal of the work here is done by private enterprise, or as part of social reform. In India, it is undertaken by the Civil Service. Moreover, the civil servant in India, unlike his colleague in Whitehall, has often to play the part of a politician in the various assemblies, and to meet attacks of political parties. Further, it has been more and more difficult for many of these deserving officials to make two ends meet.
4.0 p.m.
We are very conscious of the fact that it is inherent in any period, such as that through which we are passing, that is to say, a period of transition when we are discussing all manner of constitutional changes, that the task of the civil servant becomes more and more difficult. We are not only conscious of his services to India, but we are fully conscious of all those great difficulties with which, particularly now, he is faced. I would therefore reiterate the statement which I made at the opening of my speech, namely, that this is nothing more than an emergency Bill to deal for a short time with a great national crisis, and that it is our firm intention to safeguard in every possible way, whether under the present regime or whether under any future changes to which the Government of India might be subject, the rights and guarantees of the services. Only yesterday, I was shown, by a deputation from the Services Association in England, a telegram that was sent to them by their Indian colleagues. The telegram was to this effect. It said that if the Secretary of State can assure us that there is a genuine national emergency, bitterly though we feel the cuts which are being imposed, we will be prepared to accept them as patriotic citizens, and we wish to do our best for India and the Empire.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Was that the official attitude of the Services' Association?

Sir S. HOARE: I can tell my hon. Friend that the Services' Association's attitude is perfectly clear. They feel bitterly the need for these cuts, and they are naturally anxious as to the reactions those cuts may have, but I believe that I shall be right in saying that the telegram which was shown to me yesterday does fairly represent the great body of opinion among the services in India. They resent the cuts—I should like to make that quite clear—but they patriotically say that if it is clear that this is a national emergency, and that it is necessary for these cuts to balance the Budget, they will accept them. I should like to pay a tribute to that spirit, and I should like to say to the services that it is in that spirit that I introduce this Bill to-day. It is in that spirit that I
shall carry out its provisions, and it is in that spirit that I shall hope to see the emergency pass, and once again these deserving officials receive the full salaries to which they are entitled.

Mr. ATTLEE: We must all have been struck, I think, by the tone of the right hon. Gentleman in introducing these cuts.

Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. I was proposing to move the rejection of this Measure.

Mr. SPEAKER: That will come a little later.

Mr. ATTLEE: The tone of the right hon. Gentleman in introducing these cuts offers a very remarkable contrast to the tone in which other cuts have been dealt with in this House. There was an air throughout that this was something temporary, that every care was going to be taken that there should be no hardship, that there would be careful consultation with those affected, which offers a remarkable contrast to the cuts which were inflicted on numerous categories of persons over here such a short time ago. We must regret, I am sure, that the right bon. Gentleman's influence in the National Government was not sufficient to overcome the line that was taken by the rest of his colleagues.
I want to define our attitude towards this Bill. We are entirely opposed to this method of balancing Budgets by cuts, whether it is done in this country or whether it is done in India, We have stated our position in this House that there are other ways of doing it. If that is true in this country, it is abundantly true in India. We have here an example of the ease with which this Government can break contracts made with individuals who are employed, and their reluctance to break contracts with property owners. India is full of parasitic interests which draw enormous sums from the workers of India and pay very little indeed to the National Government. There is an enormous land-owning class who, it is true, are supposed to pay land revenue, but, as everybody knows, that land revenue is, of course, passed on to the tenant. There are numbers of persons who escape taxation altogether. Take such an instance as that which I remember. A body came before us in Bombay
called the Imamdars, who, under special contract, get out of paying land revenue. I remember their appeal for political representation on the ground of taxation, which they did not pay.
The Income Tax has been increased, but Income Tax in India does not fall on persons who derive that income from laud. I do not believe that there was the least need for cutting the pay of Indian employés, whether the low-paid or the high-paid, if they wished to balance the Indian Budget. I think that this Bill reflects the fact that the Government in India, like the Government in this country is not Labour but Capitalist. They cannot conceive of a cut being made against property owners. The cuts, of course, are going to fall on people with varying force. I notice, however, that in this Bill a great deal more care is being directed towards how these cuts are going to affect individuals. Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 says:
If it appears to the Secretary of State in Council that any such direction occasions exeptional hardship in the case of any person, he may direct that that person shall be exempted wholly or in part from the effect of that direction.
The right hon. Gentleman is to be allowed to do it where there is exceptional hardship, but the Government do not do it where the hardship is habitual. When there was a cut in unemployment benefit, there was no provision for dealing with exceptional cases of hardship. I hope that whoever is going to reply will tell us what those exceptional cases are. I can imagine very many. I can imagine an official in India on comparatively small pay with a large family, or a person who, somehow or other, has got special responsibilities. No attempt has been made to meet that in the case of teachers, or in the case of other public officials in this country, and no attempt has been made to meet it in the ease of the unemployed. There is a very remarkable difference of attitude in dealing with those two cases. I say that as a party here, we are entirely against this method of balancing Budgets by cuts. But there is another principle which comes in in this Bill. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman was very careful to tell us that he was not suffering from any dictation by Indian politicians. It was very curious
that he should have anticipated a criticism of that sort. No one has said it in this House.

Sir S. HOARE: It was said in India.

Mr. ATTLEE: It is clear that some pressure has been brought to bear on the right hon. Gentleman. I think we ought to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether this has been a demand made by the Indian Government. We all know that the pay and conditions of the services are one of those subjects which are specially reserved for the Secretary of State, and for the Secretary of State acting with the Council of India. This Bill, in effect, is a Measure to extend the power of the Government in India as against the Secretary of State here. It is a temporary abrogation of certain of the powers and certain of the safeguards which are put in the hands of the Secretary of State. May we take it that this demand came from the Indian Legislature? Did this demand come from the Indian Government, who felt that in approaching this subject they had the whole of Indian public opinion expressed in the Indian Legislative Council behind them to the effect that if cuts were going to be made in those services predominantly staffed by Indians, the cuts would be made also in the higher services with a larger proportion of British officials?
Our reason for not opposing this Bill is that we in this party stand for India's control of her own affairs. We do not like the particular way in which the Indian Government and the Indian Legislature are acting in this matter, but our position is that India, as has been said, must be allowed to make her own mistakes. The fact that the majority in the Indian Legislature is not composed of representatives of the workers, is not composed of Labour men, but that there are, as a matter of fact, a capitalist Government and a capitalist class in power, does not in the least detract from the fact that we stand here in our belief that India has got to have control of her own affairs. In effect, this is an extension of the power of the Indian Government to deal with their own affairs, and, in effect, as this came from the majority of the Assembly as at present represented, we shall not oppose this Bill, but we state that we entirely object to the policy in this Bill.
It is not our policy. It is the policy of the Indian Government, and, in so far as the Indian Government are allowed to deal with their own affairs, and are not to accept dictation from the Secretary of State, we are prepared to allow this Bill to go through.

Sir REGINALD CRADDOCK: This is the first occasion on which I have the privilege of addressing this House. The opportunity has come to me rather late in life still, I hope that the House will extend to me the same indulgence it so generously gives to political babes and sucklings, to whom so much is revealed that is hidden from those who consider themselves wise and prudent. I am speaking on this occasion, not because I wish to oppose this Bill, but because I feel that this Measure and its effects should be understood by this House, and I ask the indulgence of the House, further, as I am one of only three representatives here retired from the Indian Civil Service, and I am an old servant of the Crown who served in India under nine Viceroys, so that I ought to be in a position, if anyone is, to interpret the sentiments and feelings of the services.
The services are, as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has himself stated, as loyal and as patriotic as any body of citizens. They are not in any way responsible for my speaking to-night, nor have they prompted me as to what I shall say. I am solely responsible for that. I may find allies in unexpected directions, and, perhaps, opponents in others, but I am absolutely prepared to say that I entirely dislike the whole system of cuts. The public servant, as a citizen, has to bear the same taxation as others do, but when, in addition, cuts are inflicted upon him, it is sort of force majeure, and it is one that no Government would impose unless it was absolutely necessary. We are living in a democratic country, and we feel that there is no Government, no party which has any animus against its public services. So that we feel that if these public services have been subject to cuts it is because that method was absolutely unavoidable. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has proceeded on the assumption that the cuts have been unavoidable. The Indian politicians are delighted to inflict
these cuts. They resist any taxation which would obviate the necessity for these cuts. That makes all the difference to the spirit in which the public services submit to the cuts. What the Secretary of State has said about the attitude of public servants is correct in that they do not wish to embarrass the Government; but of course they depend upon the right hon. Gentleman not to use the powers which he is seeking to gain by this enabling Bill unless financial circumstances make it absolutely necessary.
The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the economic slump which is common to the world, as one of the defences for the action taken. No doubt the economic slump has extended to India, but it reached India at a later date than other causes which have produced this financial embarrassment. It is unfortunate that during late years the extremist politicians have gained a greater and yet a greater ascendancy over the councils of the Government of India. What produced the difficulties in India in the first place was nothing but the great loss of revenue and the extra expenditure entailed by what was a revolutionary movement, calling itself civil disobedience and passive resistance. The land revenue was delayed in collection, the excise revenue was almost destroyed, and that on account of people who felt that by picketing liquor shops and by cutting down poor people's toddy palms they could inflict the maximum loss on Government revenue. I make bold to say that the losses entailed by the civil disobedience movement in India were one of the predisposing causes of the economic slump.
It is well known that India contains one-fifth, or 20 per cent., of the population of the world, that China contains another 20 per cent., and that the population of Russia is a further 10 per cent. Add those three together, and the result is that 50 per cent. of the population of the world, for this or that reason—owing to their Government or failure to govern, or to the anarchy which has prevailed—had their purchasing power very largely reduced. I contend that the civil disobedience movement was one of the causes of the slump, and that when we now have to consider how our services should be treated we have to remember
that a great part of the loss entailed, if not all the loss entailed upon them, has been due, not to the economic slump itself, but to the great loss of revenue and the great- extra expenditure entailed by the inability of the Government to tackle the civil disobedience movement from the start.
The public debt of India is only about £800,000,000, with a population of 350,000,000. Of that total four-fifths was spent on such productive purposes as railways and irrigation works, and on this four-fifths there is no charge for interest upon the general taxpayer. That, therefore, leaves only £200,000,000 of what may be called unproductive debt. Of the taxes, the land revenue is not really a, tax at all; it is either a rent or a share of the rent according as there are landlords or not in that particular part of India. A great deal of revenue is derived from the sale of forest produce. That is not a tax. In these ways the financial situation of India is in nothing like the same critical position as the financial situation of this country.
Temporarily, no doubt, there has been great loss of revenue for the reasons that I have mentioned. But, indeed, one must allow, and I think that this House will take into consideration, when they give the right hon. Gentleman the powers under this enabling Bill, the fact that the position of the services, if one examines the march of events, is that of men who are subject to losses of which I can perhaps explain the nature by giving an illustration. You first allow incendiaries to go about the country putting inflammable material into inflammable places. You do nothing to check them, and then when the train is laid and the conflagration breaks out your trusted and faithful firemen are driven to subject themselves to the strain, the excessive work, the injury, and in some cases to death, to combat that conflagration. After that, when the conflagration has at last been checked if not entirely put out, you call upon those firemen to pay a contribution to the damage which has been caused. The incendiaries, who have been tardily checked and temporarily restrained, are set absolutely free to laugh at the firemen, who have now got a reward for their exertions. The incendiaries themselves contribute little or
nothing towards the wanton damage that they cause. That is the position of the public services in India. No wonder they feel sore. No wonder they are disheartened and disillusioned. They play up, as they always have played up, and they say that they do not wish to embarrass the Government. That is true; but the bitterness that they feel is probably not even now understood by the Members of this House.
There is another point with which I want to close my remarks. It relates to the question of safeguards. The talk of safeguards is in the air; everyone is talking about safeguards. The object of safeguards is to safeguard the just rights and liberties of the people. The object is to safeguard public servants, to safeguard all interests in order that justice may be done to them. The alarm of the services and their disquiet, the inconvenience that they have suffered under the actual cuts, weigh but little compared with the alarm and the grave apprehension that they feel at the precedent that has been set. Can you wonder that they ask themselves why these things are done while there is a Government responsible, while there is a Parliament responsible for law and order and for maintenance of justice in India? Can you wonder that they ask themselves, if these things can be done in the green tree, what can be done in the dry?"
They feel grave apprehensions when they are subject to political influences which first of all forced the hand of the Government of India and then forced the hand of the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman came into the proceedings at a late stage, and it was impossible for him to stand out against a situation which had arisen before he himself took office. A precedent of that kind, set at this moment, is particularly disheartening and dangerous to the services concerned. What is to prevent financial mismanagement in the future, resulting in yet more cuts being demanded from the services? There are people in India, politicians, who wish to be rid of the British and of the British services entirely. The British services stand between them and their power to exploit the people. The services have always stood to protect the people against exploitation. It is quite natural that the moneylenders and the Brahmin privileged
classes should resent restraints imposed upon them by the presence of the British in the services, and, I may add, of their Indian colleagues who are trained up in the same tradition.
4.30 p.m.
What I urge, therefore, is that the right hon. Gentleman who has asked for these powers should once more address himself to the question whether these cuts are absolutely unavoidable. He has certainly proceeded on the assumption, according to his speech, that the economic situation is the same in India as here. The services ask for the assurance that the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely satisfied that there is no other way by which the Budget can be balanced. A tax of a penny per head on the people of India brings in more than £1,000,000 sterling and, as has been pointed out already, there are large sections of very rich people in India who own the land, which is exempt from Income Tax and Super-tax. The services pay their Income Tax to the last cent, whereas there are crowds of firms and moneylenders and traders of all kinds who are notoriously able to evade their just payments. We are dealing with a people among whom it is said that a dealer keeps three sets of accounts, one for the income Tax collector, one for himself and a third for his partner.

Mr. McGOVERN: They do that here as well as in India.

Mr. MAXTON: Some of them are doing time for that.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: I am sorry to hear from hon. Members opposite that these practices are not confined to India. I had hoped that Scotland at all events was free from vices of this description.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: This is in England.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: I extend my hope to England as regards that matter. I know that these services feel that the resources have not been exhausted—put it as you will. As the House is aware it was only the other day that the Legislative Assembly threw out all emergency taxation and the services feel that a breach has been made in the dam which the Government of India Act provided for them, for their security and the security of their emoluments. They asked
for an assurance from the Secretary of State, that he will at all events leave the matter open to reconsideration. I am informed—I think, credibly and the right hon. Gentleman can deny it if it is not true—that great pressure was put upon the services to consent to voluntary cuts. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that they were given a chance of representing their views. Well, they were, but the notice given was so short that the representatives from the different provinces could not arrive in time, and, moreover, even those who lived nearer to Delhi had no opportunity of consulting their colleagues. I have also been told—and from what I know, this also may be true—that the pressure put upon these services was such as to prevent them agreeing to the voluntary cuts even if they wished to do so. I am told that it was put to them that if they did not agree to the voluntary cuts, it would be possible to go behind Parliament, by enacting a special capitation upon the services equivalent to the cuts which the Government were afraid to ask Parliament to sanction.

Sir S. HOARE indicated dissent.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: I am glad to know that that is not so, but 1 was told that that was the attitude adopted. I suppose that the Government of India, if some of its members did adopt that attitude, would have been careful to inform the Secretary of State of the course of the discussions. Anyhow just as the services do not wish to embarrass the Government, so I do not wish to embarrass the Secretary of State because he has been doing what he can. I know that he is anxious to see that justice is done but his hands have been forced by the Government of India, and the hands of the Government of India are being forced by the Indian politicians.
I make one last appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. He has power to exempt certain persons in cases of special hardship. I feel sure that I shall have the sympathy of the House and the consent of all the other services in asking the right hon. Gentleman to exempt the police of India. The police, as he has told us, are much less well-paid than the other services. The Income Tax was raised in April and has been raised again since by 25 per eent.—12½ per cent. this
year and 25 per cent. next year. Customs, already high, have been increased by 25 per cent. The police officer often requires a motor car for carrying out his duties and the import duty on motor cars has been increased and is now between 40 and 50 per cent. The police officers have borne the heat and burden of the day through all this frightful nightmare of revolution, disguised as civil disobedience. The British officers in that force constitute the inspiring element which has secured that the force has remained contented and loyal. Their energy, their influence over their men and their men's belief in them have enabled the police force from top to bottom to withstand appeals, calumnies, stoning, injuries, the boycotting of their relatives and the inducements, cajolery and insults to which they have been subjected.
I ask the Secretary of State to do his best for the exemption of the police. No other service will grudge such a concession. No other service will ask: "Why should this concession be given to the police; have we not been as badly treated?" They know that the police are not so well-paid. They know the exertions of the police and the temptations to which the police are subjected and the taunts which they receive from the men against whom they have, had—although it was no joy at all to them to do so—to make their lathi charges. Those men will say to the police: "This is the reward of the Government to which you have been so loyal." One would have to live in India long to understand the sensitiveness of men of this class—the sensitiveness especially of the Indian members of the force to insults of that description. We ought not to do anything which would make it harder for them to do their duty. I have spoken longer than I had intended to hut I hope that I have the sympathy of the House in the request which I now address to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. MAXTON: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
After the three speeches which have been offered to the House upon this Measure I make no apology for this Amendment. There has been, so far, no
defence of the Measure. The Secretary of State made a, rather extended apology for it, interlarded with eulogies of the Indian services. My hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), who said that he was speaking on behalf of the Opposition, said that he was quite against this Measure but that he did not propose to vote against it. The hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) has delivered the most devastating criticism of the Measure that will be delivered in the course of the Debate—certainly more devastating than the criticism which I propose to make. I congratulate the hon. Member on his first speech in this House. We have all known of his distinguished services in other fields, and at a period when this House is likely to be much concerned with the Indian question, in one form or another, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's presence here will compensate to a very large degree for the great loss which the Government suffered by the failure of the Attorney-General to gain a seat.
The Secretary of State did not make quite clear the precise numbers or classes of persons affected by the Measure. He explained quite adequately that it was intended to get at the people who had been specially protected by charter in 1919. Presumably there was some strong reason in 1919 for believing that this special protection was desirable. If there were strong reasons in 1919 for giving these public servants very special protection, then it seems to me that much stronger reasons than those given by the Secretary of State ought to be given in 1931 for withdrawing that special protection by this enactment. We move the rejection of the Measure because the group for which I speak has steadily endeavoured, both in the last Parliament and in this, to prevent the Government from pursuing the disastrous policy of attempting to take the nation out of its industrial and financial difficulties by an economy policy. When the first proposal in this direction was made, in the setting up of the May Committee by the Labour Government, we voted against it. We have used every possible influence against any movement in that direction, believing as we do that the problems which this nation, India and the world are confronting, are not problems which can be solved by reducing the purchasing power of any section of the community.
We believe that in a crisis which arises from glutted markets the reduction of the standards of life of masses of the people whether unemployed, civil servants, soldiers, sailors or police, can only make a bad crisis into a worse crisis; can only compel further progress along the same road until you pass from crisis into catastrophe. The reasons which have compelled us to oppose cuts at home on unemployed, civil servants, teachers, Army, Navy and police force, are our reasons for offering the most direct opposition to the same conception when it is carried into Indian affairs. I make no special plea for special treatment for Indian civil servants because of the nature of their work. People choose their walk in life and know the nature of the job which they are undertaking and, presumably, weigh up the inconveniences and advantages and go into it with open eyes, and I am not prepared to pay any more tribute to the men working in India than to the men who go down into the mine or who work in the shipyard. They are doing the job which they undertook to do. All I am concerned with is that the contracts which we have entered into with them shall be loyally maintained, and that they shall not be used as pawns for the furtherance of a national policy which I profoundly believe to be based on complete misconceptions.
The hon. and gallant Member opposite, who spoke with immense knowledge of Indian affairs, blamed the bad financial position of India on the politicians. He will find, as he progresses in the realm of politics, that the politicians here also are not free from that charge, that the politician, because he is very much in the public eye, is very often made the whipping-boy for other people who do not appear so prominently in the public eye; and I am afraid that the economic conditions of India, as of England, Germany, and the United States of America, are to be laid at the door of more important, more powerful and more influential people than the politicians, either in the one country or the other. Indeed, it seems to me that the politicians have in most cases prevented those who were running industry and finance from carrying their desire for exploitation to extremities that would have brought us to bigger disasters than those we are in just now. Therefore, I hope there will
not be any attempt here to play off the politician against the civil servant, to play off the Indian politicians or the leaders of Indian movements against the Indian civil servants.
My view is that English rule in India will not be maintained for a very much longer period. I think that that phase of history must necessarily come very soon to an end, in spite of any efforts that may be made to stay it. I think that the whole trend of world affairs is against the possibility in the near future of small nationalities being able to impose their rule and their will on hundreds of millions of their fellows, and the condition in which India is to-day, the condition that has been so adequately described by the last speaker, does not justify us in paying tributes to ourselves as to the amount of progress that has been made while we have been in occupation. If it be true, as I believe it will be true, that English domination in India will shortly cease, let us try, if we possibly can, that our Civil Service, our Army, our Air Force, and our police shall be withdrawn in decent and orderly fashion, and without any unnecessary ill-feeling being fomented between them and the civil population.
To come to the somewhat narrow purpose of this Bill, I expect to have certain Amendments to move on the Committee stage, should the Bill receive a Second Reading, but I want whoever is replying for the Secretary of State to tell us just exactly how many persons are affected by it, what particular branches of the public service are affected by it, how many of the persons concerned are Indians and how many are British, what proportion of the total expenditure on the public service is entailed by these particular cases, as against the total amount, what were the reasons for giving these people special protection in 1919, and what was the idea in putting them in a position, as I take it, similar to that of judges in this country, whose emoluments are almost beyond challenge by this House. The idea here is that they shall be above the possibility of influence. Was that the reason for putting these Indian servants in this position, so that their livelihood could not become the subject of fluctuating political power in one hand or another, or so that they could exercise
their functions, as it were, above the battle, without any fear for their own livelihood?
Further, I want to know what are the lower limits of the incomes that are proposed to be cut under this Bill. The Secretary of State himself, I think, referred to a salary of about 120 rupees per month. Just at the moment, I am not quite sure what the exchange value of the rupee is. Indeed, I am not sure about the pound itself at the moment, and I am even more indefinite about the rupee, but I take it that 120 rupees a month represents something less than 210—£0, I think it is. Is it proposed to impose a 10 per cent. cut on a wage of that kind? The Secretary of State in Council has the opportunity, under Subsection (2) of Clause 1, of considering cases of exceptional hardship, and I want to know if it is these people, who are on the very lowest level of remuneration and who are probably numerous, who are going to be the subject of the special concessions; or is it going to be, as we have seen it in our own land, that it is the hardship of people holding the higher public positions that rends the heart of the Secretary of State? These points I should like to have definitely answered by the responsible spokesman of the India Office here.
I noticed with interest that there has been an attempt to get these people to impose a voluntary cut on themselves. That, I gather, was rejected; they refused to impose upon themselves this voluntary cut. I am not surprised. A large proportion of them are barely managing to make ends meet. I knew, in my student days, many young men who chose the Indian Civil Service or the Indian police as the profession that they were going to follow in life. Many of them came out of very humble homes. The examination that they had to pass was generally regarded as the stiffest competitive examination that was set in this country, and not only was it a very stiff competitive examination, but it could only be looked at by men who bad undergone a very advanced university education. I have known men out of very humble homes going through that strenuous course, sitting for that very rigorous examination, coming out with flying colours, and having exhausted not merely
their own resources, for they had none, but their family resources as well in the doing of it, and who went out to their appointments feeling themselves in honour bound to repay the father, the mother, the brother, or the sister who had stood by them while they were going through their course. I should imagine, from those who came before my own personal notice, that there must have been hundreds of that type in the Indian Service, and I am quite satisfied that the reason why these people are putting up a very stubborn resistance, and have refused to accept a voluntary cut on their wages, is simply because a large proportion of them cannot possibly do it and remain solvent under the conditions under which they have to live.
I ask the Secretary of State again to tell me to what extent he is prepared to go in considering cases of exceptional hardship. I might even put it more definitely, and ask to what amount he is prepared to go in making concessions in cases of particular hardship. Are these concessions to be made to the people who need them most, or are they to be made, as they were made here, to the people who look more dangerous and more awkward? We appealed to the Government again and again to consider the very exceptional hardship of the unemployed classes, but the Government remained adamant—no concession there for exceptional hardship. One little bit of noise in a particular key Service, and then it was recognised that the cuts to be imposed in the Navy would inflict serious hardship, and a concession was made there. Is that to he the method of the India Office in considering special hardships under this Bill? Is it to be the fellows who are hard up or the fellows who can make a noise who are to be the subject of the right hon. Gentleman's special mercy?
5.0 p.m.
One good thing that can be said about this Bill is that it is limited to two years. I hope that the anticipation that the situation will have been overcome in two years will be justified. My view, and that of my hon. Friends, is that the situation will have been worsened, but in any case we were dealing on Monday with a whole collection of Bills which, when passed, were for one year, two years, or three years only, but which,
year after year, are shoved into the Expiring Laws Bill, because although in their wisdom several years ago the politicians thought they were dealing with a temporary situation, events have proved that it was a more stubborn situation than they had deemed. Probably in 1933, when we come to discuss the Expiring Laws Bill, we shall find added to the long list that is already there the Indian Pay (Temporary Abatements) Bill. The right hon. Gentleman in introducing it told the well-known story of a certain distinguished schoolmaster who was described by a small boy as a beast, but a just beast. One may describe this Measure as one that is beastly, but not just. An examination of it discloses the beastliness, but a most careful scrutiny fails to discover the element of justice.

Mr. KIRKWO0D: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. ENTWISTLE: I wish to raise the question of the Judges of the High Courts of India who, I am sure the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) will be surprised to hear, are covered by this Bill. It will be generally admitted by the House that it is a matter of high policy that the judiciary should be independent of the executive. It is clear that that was recognised by this House when the Government of India Act was passed, because the Section of that Act which deals with the pay and salaries of Judges is quite separate and distinct from the Section which deals with the pay and allowances of the Indian Civil Service. The Section which affects the High Courts in India is Section 104, which reads as follows:
The Secretary of State in Council may fix the salaries, allowances and retiring pensions of the chief justices and other judges of the several high courts, and may alter them, but any such alteration shall not affect the salary of any judge appointed before the date thereof.
that is to say, before the date of the fixing of the salaries. It is clear, therefore, that this House, when it passed the Government of India Act, intended that it should not be in the power of the Secretary of State to interfere with the pensions or salaries of any Judges who were then appointed, and that the only power he should have to affect salaries was in regard to Judges appointed after the date
of the fixing of the salaries. The Section of the Act which affects the Indian Civil Service apart from the Judges is Section 93 (b), and that is in different terms and has not the qualification as to the power of the Secretary of State. Therefore, I submit that the position of the High Court Judges stands on a different footing from that of the members of the Civil Service.
The Secretary of State said that lie was in favour of these cuts being carried out in a voluntary manner, and that he was disappointed that the Service Associations had expressed their desire that they should be compulsory rather than voluntary. That is so. I have read the resolutions of most of the Civil Service Associations, and while they, as the right hon. Gentleman said, bitterly resent the cuts, they say that if there have to be cuts, they prefer them to be compulsory rather than voluntary. Does that also apply to the Judges of the High Courts of India? I should be very surprised to hear that they would prefer the cuts being compulsory rather than voluntary. I daresay that there are a few Judges in India, or a few of the High Courts in India, who, if the cut were left to their voluntary agreement, might not consent; but I think, on the other hand, that there are many High Courts of India—I know, for instance, of one in particular, the High Court of Allahabad—whose Judges volunteered to accept the 10 per cent. cut.
I would ask the Secretary of State to lay on the Table, before the Committee stage of this Bill, communications which lie has received from the high courts of India on this important matter, which they regard as of supreme importance and a matter of really high policy in the interests of the State. I understand that an important letter, dated 7th August this year, from the High Court of Calcutta to the Secretary of the Home Department of the Government of India, is in the possession of the Secretary of State, and sets out very fully the objections of the high courts to this Measure being introduced. It is undoubtedly of great importance that the judiciary should not be subject to Executive control and interference. A dangerous precedent will be set if the Secretary of State seeks powers compulsorily to deal with the salaries of the high court judges. We
know that conferences have taken place with regard to additional autonomous powers being granted to the Legislature in India, and if there is an alteration of the Central Government in India, which is more under India's control, it will be a serious thing if this Bill were taken as a precedent by them to interfere with the judiciary in India.
Gandhi, I understand, has expressed the view that no one should have a salary of more than £500 a year, whoever he is. I believe that some Members of this House have expressed this view on some occasions, but we can understand that if Gandhi or his followers have more control, as they might have some day, in the Government of India, one of the first class of persons which will be attacked will be the high court judges. I submit to the Secretary of State that the category of judges stands quite different from that of the rest of the Indian Civil Service. It is different because there is a separate statutory enactment in a different form dealing with their position. Furthermore, they are as the judiciary in a different category from that of the Civil Service, who are the direct servants of the executive. In addition, high court judges of India have, if I am correctly informed, as have the other members of the Indian Civil Service, expressed their desire for a compulsory rather than a voluntary cut. In these circumstances, I would ask the Secretary of State to consider before the Committee stage whether the high courts of India should not be exempted from the provisions of the Bill. I understand they are affected because the Bill says:
If it appears to the Secretary of State in Council that it is necessary.… to make abatements from the pay of persons in the service of the Crown in India.
Clearly, the Judges of the High Courts of India are persons in the service of the Crown in India, and therefore they will be affected by the provisions of this Bill. I do not want to put their case on pure questions of merit, because I think that it is really a question of high policy; but, if it comes to a question of merit, I understand that they have had no increases whatever in their salaries for a great many years, whereas all other classes of the Civil Service in India have.
It is unfortunate that when you get a body of people like Judges—and the same thing applies in this country—the Government, owing to the small number of persons concerned and the relatively high salaries that they receive, never think of coming before the House to increase their salaries because of the objections which might be raised. Nevertheless, when it comes to any cut for reasons of economy, the Judges have to suffer with the rest, although they have had none of the increases that the rest have had. Although many promises have been made to them that there shall be an increase, it has never been carried out. I understand that in the official correspondence which has taken place, it has frequently been recognised that the salaries of the Judges of the High Courts of India should be increased, and I should be glad if the Under-Secretary who will reply will confirm or deny that statement.
I have restricted my remarks purely to the question of the judiciary, because that stands in a different category. I believe that the example which is required will be given if the cut is a voluntary one, and, if it is voluntary, you will avoid a repeal or modification of a Section of the Government of India Act. When moving the Second Reading of this Bill, the Secretary of State said that it does not repeal any Section in the Government of India Act. I do not know what he means. If he means that it does not repeal in toto any particular Section, that is true, but it does repeal part of Section 104. That would be a most undesirable precedent, which we might bitterly regret in future. I appeal to the Secretary of State not to allow that precedent to be set. It is easy to differentiate this particular class from the others, because there is a separate Section, namely, Section 104, dealing with them. I appeal to the Secretary of State to allow the cut in the case of the Judges to be obtained by voluntary means. I am sure that he will get all the response which is needed, and, in addition, he will safeguard the independence of the judiciary in India, which is of such great importance to our government in that country.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I hope that the House will excuse the absence of my right hon.
Friend the Secretary of State. Unfortunately, he had arranged a meeting of vital importance, which alone would enable him to ask the forgiveness of the House in absenting himself during a Debate on a Bill of such importance as this. I have been able, I hope, to secure answers to the many questions which hon. Members have asked; I hope, therefore, that they will permit me to deputise for my right hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), who on this occasion was the Leader of the official Opposition, promised his support of the Bill in a rather remarkable speech. To a listener such as myself, it appeared to be a hang-over from his election campaign of last month, with the simple change that all the remarks about the parasitic classes which he had addressed in one form and another to his constituency, were altered to suit a little the colour of India. He certainly astonished me, and I think other hon. Members on my side of the House, when he said that he wanted to take this opportunity of showing that his party was entirely opposed to the policy of balancing budgets by cuts, because he left out the words, "When in Opposition." We know that when in power, when sitting round a Cabinet table, they get down to cuts as quickly as any other Government.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Hear, hear! But that is a thing of the past now.

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member must not think that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite enjoy a close season from everybody except themselves. The few points which the hon. Member made with regard to the actual Bill were as follows. He asked, as other hon. Members have asked, about the exceptional cases of hardship with which the Secretary of State has reserved himself the power to deal. My right hon. Friend has asked me to say that he cannot here and now tell the House whether this case or that will receive his consideration, but that he intends to consider representations from all classes of officers under his control who feel themselves to be suffering a special hardship at a- time when, I am afraid, all are suffering inconveniences and many suffering hardships, and will consider them in the most sympathetic
spirit. The only other point the hon. Member made had reference to pressure by politicians. As a matter of fact, the provisions for cuts which this legislation is necessary to implement were included in a budget for which the Finance Minister and the Viceroy's Council were responsible. The pressure which was exercised by the Legislature was not for the cuts which we are discussing to-day but for cuts far more serious and greater in their intensity.
Lastly, I would like to comment on the quite moving peroration with which the lion. Member closed his speech. His sole reason for allowing this Bill which so affronts his economic principles to pass the House was that it was desired, wrong though it might be, by the Indian politicians. He was anxious that the desire of the Indian politicians to control their own affairs should receive the assent of the hon. Member. I cannot be certain whether I have made a mistake, or whether it was the hon. Member who signed the constitutional report two years ago.

Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. Member may not know that it has been an accepted convention that where the Government of India and the Legislature of India are in agreement in general principles the Home Government should not oppose it.

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member in his original speech was careful to leave out "the Government of India."

Mr. ATTLEE: Oh, no!

Mr. STANLEY: May I now turn to the maiden speech made by the hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock). I hope he will not think it presumptuous of me if I add my quota to the tributes already paid to him by hon. Members for that speech. We all know his record and the service he has rendered in India, and I am sure that even those who may take a somewhat different view of India and Indian politics to himself will realise that his presence here means a real addition to the debating power of this House when dealing with Indian questions. The hon. Gentleman asked the Secretary of State to assure him that the method here proposed was unavoidable because, he said, representing, I think, the spirit of the Services for whom he spoke, that if they
were convinced that this method was unavoidable in order to meet a financial crisis of the greatest gravity they would be prepared to accept it in that spirit. I am asked by the right hon. Gentleman to assure the hon. Member that in his view that grave crisis does exist, and that this is the unavoidable way of meeting it. The hon. Member referred to the effect that civil disobedience as distinguished from world economics had had upon the budgetary position of India. It is true, of course, that civil disobedience had an injurious effect upon India, but whereas one would naturally expect that the financial effects of civil disobedience would be limited to the current budgetary year, and that, if that were the greatest cause of Indian financial difficulties the position next year would be better, I must point out that the estimate made by the Finance Minister is for a deficit of £14,500,000 this year and the same, and not a less deficit, next year.
An important point was raised by the hon. Member regarding the question of safeguarding the future. He pointed out, quite rightly, what the effect on the Services must be when they find that something which has had Parliamentary sanction is now to be altered by the assent of the House, and, indeed, the very preamble which authorises the making of temporary abatements:
Notwithstanding subsisting statutory rights
is a warning to all of us that in this Bill we are asked to do something which is exceptional and disagreeable. The hon. Member feared that this may be a precedent, and that the hardship which is caused to-day may, by a subsequent extension of this precedent, become ruin in the future. May I point out that every attempt has been made in the way this Measure has been drawn up to avoid its being, or having the appearance of, a precedent. It is deliberate that there is no repeal of any Clause in any Statute, that it provides merely for these temporary abatements, and that its operation is limited in time. Therefore, as far as possible, we have taken steps to make sure that it shall not be a precedent. Further, I would point out that the real safeguard of the services lies in Parliament, that it has been necessary for the
Secretary of State to come to this House to try to persuade them to alter the sanction which Parliament formerly gave. Any further attempt made in that direction would also have to receive the assent of the House of Commons, and I am sure the House would never give assent to a Measure which they thought was involving the Services, of whom they are proud and to whom they are grateful, in ruin and disaster.
I will turn now to the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). When I saw it on the Order Paper this morning in his name I was considerably surprised. Up to the present he and those with whom he is associated have shown, perhaps, more criticism of than sympathy with the class of people with whom we are dealing to-day, and I rather wondered whether the fact that in his new position he has to rub shoulders with men of other parties had had some effect upon him. I wondered whether the old proverb, "Evil communications corrupt good manners" was being reversed, and that arising out of the press of Members on the same bench the feelings of himself and his friends were changing. But even if this Amendment were actuated, as it is quite clear from the speech of the hon. Member that it was not, by a desire to protect the classes of people who are dealt with, I should advise the Indian Services to be a little cautious of their new friends. One of the few legacies which I retain from about eight years of classical education is the Latin tag, "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes," which one might roughly translate, "I fear the Clyde when on my side."
I have discovered that this Amendment has little to do with the facts either of the Bill or with the Indian situation, but was largely a peg upon which the hon. Gentleman could hang his economic views. This, however, is hardly the time for me to debate world economics with the hon. Member. We have debated that before. Over a space of some hours we discussed in public whether the rich were robbers, to our mutual satisfaction and disagreement.

Mr. McGOVERN: He won.

Mr. STANLEY: I have no doubt the hon. Member thought so. He objects
on principle to economies in dealing with the present world crisis, believing that any reduction in the consuming power of any section of the people will only aggravate the financial difficulties in which we find ourselves. I wonder whether he believes in taxation, because taxation, like economy cuts, reduces the consuming power of some of us. If you add 25 per cent. to the Income Tax that people pay you reduce their consuming power, just as if you take 10 per cent. from their salaries. I am forced to the conclusion that the hon. Member objects to balancing budgets at all, for that is the only way in which to avoid decreasing the consuming power of some section of the population. It is not easy to say what should be done in India if the Budget were not balanced, whether to meet the deficit by borrowing—though India with an unbalanced budget would, perhaps, not be a good borrower—or meet it by the time-honoured but disastrous process of printing notes and in flating the currency. But that broad question, and the even broader one on which the hon. Member embarked of our future association with India, is one which must stand over to some other occasion.
5.30 p.m.
The hon. Member did, however, ask me certain definite questions connected with this Bill, the answer to which I am glad to say I am in a position to give. He asked how many persons are affected by it. It is not possible to give the exact figure, but a rough idea can be arrived at in this way. The total number of members of the services who owe their appointment to the Secretary of State as opposed to the Government of India or Provincial Governments is in round figures 5,000. The people affected by these cuts are those who joined prior to the commencement of the Government of India Act, 1919; that is to say, those who have had more than 10 years' service. The average length of service is 30 years, and we assume that the number affected will be about two-thirds. I have been asked what are the individual services which are affected. Most of the services affected come under what is known as "all-India services," and they include the, Indian Civil Service, the police, the agricultural and education services, the forest services, the service of engineering, the Indian medical ser-
vice, the Indian veterinary service and the Indian general service. The proportion of British to Indians is about 2½ to one. The amount of money involved is about £3,000,000, and it represents about 3 per cent. of the total expenditure.
I have been asked why this question was not dealt with in the Act of 1919. It is well known that that Act made a very considerable change in the constitution of India, and at the time those changes were made we did not know how they would ultimately affect those in the Indian service. Reference has been made to the lower grades of the service and those getting 120 rupees per month have been mentioned. The Secretary of State referred to these people and he gave the exemptions, but he was not referring to the cuts under this Bill but to the cuts going to be made by the Government of India and the provincial Government under their own authority. All those affected by this particular Bill are members of the ordinary service with at least 10 years' service and enjoying salaries considerably in excess of those to which the hon. Member referred. With regard to the judiciary of India, it is quite true that they could be included, and I will certainly convey to the Secretary of State the considerations which the hon. and gallant Member opposite put before the Committee.
I will certainly bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend what has been said with regard to the position of the judiciary and the possibility of there being a difference in their treatment between them and the rest of the Civil Service on the question of voluntary cuts. The power given to the Secretary of State under this Bill is not obligatory but permissive, and it will be for my right hon. Friend to decide how these cuts are to be applied. I hope I have now answered satisfactorily the points which have been raised by hon. Members. It is no pleasant task for me to ask the House to pass this Bill and for the house to grant support to a Measure which is bound to entail inconvenience and loss to a class for whom we have a great admiration. I do not think any hon. Member disputes the claim which these men have upon this country, more especially during the difficult times of the last few years. The House in passing this Measure will be conveying to this
service that what we are doing in this Bill is being done in no spirit of depreciation of their service but as an unavoidable financial alternative. I am sure that this service still occupies in the minds of the British people that place of pride which they have occupied for many years.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to make one or two observations dealing with what has been said in the speech made by the hon. Member who has spoken on behalf of the Government. The hon. Gentleman in seeking to justify this Bill said that India was passing through an acute financial crisis and that this was a Measure which must be passed in order to restore the financial position of India. The hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Entwistle) said that this Measure was a terrible hardship upon the Indian Civil Service because some of them had received no increases for many years, and it was unfair to subject them to cuts of this description. The same hon. Member also said that these cuts would affect the police terribly, and he asked the Secretary of State to deal differently with the police.
An appeal has also been made to exempt the doctors, the police, and the judges, and, in face of all that, we have been told that this Measure has been accepted without any great feeling of resentment by the services involved. The question I put to the Government is, first of all, are the reductions provided for in this Bill justified? That is a question to which we should receive an answer. I also wish to know whether after the reductions have been made there is left for a great number of the members of the services involved a decent and adequate income. That is a point which has not been answered. When these cuts have been made, many of these officials will be left with an income which few Members of this House can defend. We have been told that the pay of the police is £2 5s. per month, or about 120 rupees. I would like to know if we are treating the Indian Civil Service in the same way as the British Civil Service.

Mr. STANLEY: Only those receiving over 120 rupees per month will be included.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I understand that every person receiving more than 120 rupees per month will be affected by this Bill.

Mr. STANLEY: Certain classes above 120 rupees-per month.

Mr. BUCHANAN: We were told that all these people were to be treated equally, and now we are told that some classes are exempted. The hon. Member has also told the Committee that certain classes are to have their pay reduced by the Indian Legislature and local authorities; that these sections were safeguarded in 1929 and that this Bill now brings those who were safeguarded in 1919 into the same category. I understand that everybody is free up to 120 rupees a month, but that there are certain classes with more than 120 rupees per month who are not to be touched. Who are these exempted people? I would also like to know who are to make the exemptions, and what are the reasons for those exemptions? Are they receiving too low wages or are they people in a privileged. position who can exert influence? Are they friends of politicians?

Mr. STANLEY: The classes exempted are sub-inspectors and European sergeants.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Those two classes are to be exempt, but the ordinary-policeman is not to be exempt. I assume that those two classes have been able to exercise extra pressure upon the authorities. The defence which has been put forward for this Measure is that these people can stand the cuts which are proposed. I believe that the Budget of India is somewhere round about £30,000,000, and it may he more.

Mr. STANLEY: The deficit for 1931–32 will be:£14,500,000, and the estimated deficit for 1932–33 is £14,500,000, making the total £29,000,000.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. Member said that savings amounting to £3,000,000 would he effected by this Bill.

Mr. STANLEY: I must have misunderstood the hon. Member's question. I thought he was asking for the proportion of the pay relating to the people who are exempted. The sum of £3,000,000 is not the savings to be made under this particular Bill, but it is an estimate of the pay received by the people who come under the Bill. The savings under this Bill will be limited to a 10 per cent. reduction.

Mr. BUCHANAN: That is to say, India's Budget is to be saved if you can take £300,000 from these poor folk. That is what we are passing this Bill for. India would be in a state of collapse if the Imperial Parliament did not pass this Bill to-day. I am amazed at the Opposition, while saying that they believe these cuts to be wrong and unjust in most cases, saying at the same time that the Indian Legislature has agreed to them, and that therefore they believe in allowing the Indian Government to carry them out. Surely, if the Indian Legislature agreed to anything that was wrong, the Opposition would not agree with it in this House. Surely they would not agree that the Indian Legislature has reached the stage of being a democratic assembly, because it has not. In any case, we have our duty to do here, and, as long as Parliament devolves that duty upon us, we have the right to say that no cuts shall be imposed.
The only reason that has been given for this Bill so far is that certain cuts were going to be imposed on others, and that therefore these cuts should follow suit. No one believes that India is going to be saved by this sum of £300,000; no one believes that these cuts are absolutely necessary. The hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) who has so great a knowledge of India, knows, as indeed the elementary student of India knows, that possibly you might lose far more than £300,000 by your cuts, because you might raise so much discontent and ill feeling that the £300,000 may well be lost. If I may give an illustration, it would have paid the country to have exempted the Navy from the cuts imposed upon it. That would have saved a tremendous amount of trouble and crisis. In this case the saving is comparatively a minor one.
My hon. Friends and myself are going to divide against this Bill. It is quite true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that we have been critical of many Indian civil servants and police, but we have often been critical of the Scottish and Indian police as well. We have been critical of many interests, but that does not hinder us from defending a class of people who are engaged in a wage struggle. We have been critical of school teachers, and
sometimes of doctors, but we have at all times set out to defend them when their wage standards were being attacked meanly and unfairly, and we felt that we had a duty to do so. We have criticised Indian civil servants, and we intend to criticise them in the future, but that has nothing to do with this issue. The issue is that, as the hon. Member for the English Universities knows, large numbers of the people affected by these cuts cannot stand the reduction, for they will be left with a margin totally insufficient to enable them to lead a human and a happy life such as they rightly demand.
This Bill cannot be defended on the ground that it is necessary for balancing the Indian Budget. The sum involved is only £300,000, and the Government could have raised it in a much better fashion than by attacking what are in many cases meagre wage standards. We range ourselves with these people, not because we defend every or any action that they take, but because the Bill attacks a certain class of working people—[Interruption] —hon. Members may smile, but they are working people; they are people who render services which the nation believes to be necessary for it. We range ourselves with working people, even though they be Indian civil servants, as we are always prepared to do in this House. Our number may be small, but I hope that the four or five of us who are now here will always range ourselves with the Indian civil servant, or any other civil servant, if he is being attacked unfairly and meanly.
The Government might have raised this £300,000 from people who had a surplus out of which they could pay it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) was twitted with the statement that purchasing power can be attacked by taxation as well as by direct reduction, and that is true, but there are limits within which a person can live. Even a rich person cannot eat two breakfasts, or wear three suits of clothes at one time, and anyone who has enough to buy himself three suits to wear is keeping two suits from someone else. [Interruption.] They are taking from the community a surplus to which they have no right, we believe that the community has a right to recoup itself from that surplus, and
we say that from that surplus which is to be found in India this £300,000 could have been found.

Mr. STANLEY: rose—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I would point out that the House is not now in Committee, and that we cannot carry on a Debate in the House if hon. Members, by way of interruptions, make more than one speech.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Would the hardship have been greater if the taxation of rich people had been increased to the extent

Division No. 20.]
AYES.
[5.54 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Clarke, Frank
Gledhill, Gilbert


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Clarry, Reginald George
Glossop, C. W. H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Clayton, Dr. George C.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Albery, Irving James
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Golf, Sir Park


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Llverp'l, W.)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd,W)
Colfox, Major William Philip
Gower, Sir Robert


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Colman, N. C. D.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Colville, Major David John
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Conant, R. J. E.
Graves, Majorie


Applln, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Cook, Thomas A.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Apsley, Lord
Cooke, James D.
Griffith. F. Kingsley (Mlddlesbro',W.)


Aske, Sir William Robert
Cooper, A. Duff
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Astbury. Lieut. Com. Frederick Welle
Copeland, Ida
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Atholl, Duchess of
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Cowan, D. M.
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. B.
Craven-Ellis, William
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crooke, J. Smedley
Hales, Harold K.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Wlndt (Bootle)
Hall, Lieut. Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Croom-Johnson. R. P.
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)


Balniel, Lord
Crossley, A. C,
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hanbury, Cecil


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Cuiverwell, Cyril Tom
Hanley, Dennis A.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Curry. A. C.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovll)
Harris, Percy A.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Davison, Sir William Henry
Hartland, George A.


Bernays, Robert
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kennlngt'n)


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Denville, Alfred
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bilndell, James
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Dickie, John P.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Borodale, Viscount
Donner, P. W.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Bossom, A. C.
Doran, Edward
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Boulton, W. W.
Drewe, Cedric
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Hepworth, Joseph


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Duggan, Hubert John
Hillman, Dr. George B.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Bralthwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)
Dunglass, Lord
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Eady, George H.
Holdsworth, Herbert


Brass, Captain Sir William
Eden, Robert Anthony
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)


Briscoe, Richard George
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hornby, Frank


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Ellis. Robert Geoffrey
Horsbrugh, Florence


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Ncwb'y)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Buchan-Hepburn, p. G. T.
Elmley, Viscount
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Burnett, John George
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Butler, Richard Austen
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Entwistle, Major Cyril Fullard
James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.


Calne, G. R. Hall
Ersklne, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Jamleson, Douglas


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Janner, Barnett


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Campbell-Johnston. Malcolm
Evans. R. T. (Carmarthen)
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)


Carver, Major William H.
Flanagan, W. H.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Castle Stewart, Earl
Fraser, Captain Ian
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Fuller, Captain A. E. G.
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)
Gibson, Charles Granville
Kimball. Lawrence


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Glllett, Sir George Masterman
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Christie, James Archibald
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

of £300,000 than is entailed by reducing the meagre wages of people who have £9 10s. or a month? Our case is that it would have been much more just to raise this £300,000 from people who are relatively well off compared with these people. We consider that these people are being unfairly and wrongly attacked. We range ourselves with these civil servants, Indians and British alike, and we intend to press the matter to a Division.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 345; Noes, 3.

Division No. 20.]
AYES.
[5.54 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Clarke, Frank
Gledhill, Gilbert


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Clarry, Reginald George
Glossop, C. W. H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Clayton, Dr. George C.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Albery, Irving James
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Golf, Sir Park


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Llverp'l, W.)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd,W)
Colfox, Major William Philip
Gower, Sir Robert


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Colman, N. C. D.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Colville, Major David John
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Conant, R. J. E.
Graves, Majorie


Applln, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Cook, Thomas A.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Apsley, Lord
Cooke, James D.
Griffith. F. Kingsley (Mlddlesbro',W.)


Aske, Sir William Robert
Cooper, A. Duff
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Astbury. Lieut. Com. Frederick Welle
Copeland, Ida
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Atholl, Duchess of
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Cowan, D. M.
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. B.
Craven-Ellis, William
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crooke, J. Smedley
Hales, Harold K.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Wlndt (Bootle)
Hall, Lieut. Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Croom-Johnson. R. P.
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)


Balniel, Lord
Crossley, A. C,
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hanbury, Cecil


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Cuiverwell, Cyril Tom
Hanley, Dennis A.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Curry. A. C.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovll)
Harris, Percy A.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Davison, Sir William Henry
Hartland, George A.


Bernays, Robert
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kennlngt'n)


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Denville, Alfred
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bilndell, James
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Dickie, John P.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Borodale, Viscount
Donner, P. W.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Bossom, A. C.
Doran, Edward
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Boulton, W. W.
Drewe, Cedric
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Hepworth, Joseph


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Duggan, Hubert John
Hillman, Dr. George B.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Bralthwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)
Dunglass, Lord
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Eady, George H.
Holdsworth, Herbert


Brass, Captain Sir William
Eden, Robert Anthony
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)


Briscoe, Richard George
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hornby, Frank


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Ellis. Robert Geoffrey
Horsbrugh, Florence


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Ncwb'y)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Buchan-Hepburn, p. G. T.
Elmley, Viscount
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Burnett, John George
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Butler, Richard Austen
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Entwistle, Major Cyril Fullard
James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.


Calne, G. R. Hall
Ersklne, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Jamleson, Douglas


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Janner, Barnett


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Campbell-Johnston. Malcolm
Evans. R. T. (Carmarthen)
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)


Carver, Major William H.
Flanagan, W. H.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Castle Stewart, Earl
Fraser, Captain Ian
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Fuller, Captain A. E. G.
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)
Gibson, Charles Granville
Kimball. Lawrence


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Glllett, Sir George Masterman
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Christie, James Archibald
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Law, Sir Alfred
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Peters'fld)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
North, Captain Edward T.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dine, C.)


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Nunn, William
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Lees-Jones, John
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Somerset, Thomas


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ormiston, Thomas
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Owen, Major Goronwy
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Levy, Thomas
Palmer, Francis Noel
Soper, Richard


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Pearson, William G.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Lister, Bt. Hon, Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Penny, Sir George
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Percy, Lord Eustace
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Llewellln, Major John J.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Petherick, M.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn.G.(Wd.Gr'n)
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bllston)
Stevenson, James


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Pickering, Ernest H.
Stones, James


Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Plckford, Hon. Mary Ada
Storey, Samuel


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Pike, Cecil F.
Strauss, Edward A.


Lymingion, Viscount
Potter, John
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Mabane, William
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Pybus, Percy John
Taylor,Vlce-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)


MacAndrew, Capt. J. D. (Ayr)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Templeton, William P.


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Thorn, Lieut.-Colonel John Gibb


McCorquodale, M. S.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles.)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Ramsbotham, Herswald
Thomas, Major J. B. (King's Norton)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Ramsden, E.
Thompson, Luke


McEwen, J. H. F.
Rankin, Robert
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


McKeag, William
Rathbone, Eleanor
Thorp, Linton Theodore


McKie, John Hamilton
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Rea, Walter Russell
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


McLean, Major Alan
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Train, John


Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Macqulsten, Frederick Alexander
Remer, John R.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Maklns, Brigadier-General Ernest
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Marjoribanks, Edward
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Weymouth, Viscount


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Runge, Norah Cecil
White, Henry Graham


Martin, Thomas B.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Mason. Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Russell,Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Meller, Richard James
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Millar, James Duncan
Salmon, Major Isidore
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Mills, Sir Frederick
Salt, Edward W.
Wlndsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Milne, Charles
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Milne. John Sydney Wardlaw
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
withers. Sir John James


Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Wood, Major M. McKenzie (Banff)


Mltchescn, G. G.
Savery, Samuel Servington
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Scone, Lord
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Moreing, Adrian C.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.



Morgan, Robert H.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Moss, Captain H. J.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Captain Austin Hudson and


Munro, Patrick
Slmmonds, Oliver Edwin
Commander Southby.


NOES.


Buchanan, George
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Devlin, Joseph

Mr. McGovern and Mr. Kirkwood.


Question put, and agreed to.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Stanley.]

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (PROLONGATION OF INSURANCE) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
6.0 p.m.
The Bill is, unfortunately, in a form familiar to the House, because it repeats the Measure of a year ago. Its general purpose is to prolong in health insurance those who would otherwise be put out of insurance by reason of unemployment. The class actually affected by the Bill is the class of those who would cease to be in health insurance at the end of 1931 and in 1932 by reason of prolonged unemployment and, of course, the House will appreciate that that is a class which, by the very fact that it has been long
unemployed, is particularly susceptible to ill-health, and particularly requires the benefits that are obtained under health insurance. The Bill will preserve medical and cash benefits and all contributory pension rights, which are rights of an important nature to this class. The House, of course, appreciates that, under the present form of the Act, the cash benefits are only half benefits. The duration of the Bill is the same as that of the last Measure, and it is to prolong matters for another year to 31st December, 1932. The form of the Bill might, perhaps, excite some criticism. It is undoubtedly a complicated Measure in its working. I have kept it in that form on this occasion in order that it may be perfectly clear that we are simply repeating what we did a year ago, and are introducing no new terms.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it absolutely the same?

Sir H. YOUNG: It is absolutely the same. The finance of the Bill deserves a word. As the House will remember, on the previous occasion it was thought unreasonable, and indeed impossible, to cast the additional financial burden of the prolongation of these people in insurance on to the approved societies, if for no other reason, because the reserves of those societies are depleted by the very unemployment which makes this Bill a necessity, and for that reason the burden of the prolongation is borne by the Exchequer. It is borne in this form, that the Exchequer will make 36 contributions in respect of each person prolonged in insurance, and it will also pay its proportion of the benefits. The Exchequer contribution, therefore, takes the double form of a contribution per person and a proportion of the grant.
As to what that will cost, we are fortunately on this occasion able to make a more reliable estimate than was possible on the occasion of the previous Measure, because we have longer experience, and on this occasion we can say with more certainty that, assuming the basis of 70,000 persons prolonged—that is the figure that is indicated by experience—the loss to the Exchequer will be £95,000 in respect of the contribution, and £15,000 in respect of the proportion of the grant. The House will have observed
from the White Paper that no contribution will be made to the fund in respect of the pension rights. That is for the simple and fortunate reason that the finance of that fund is adequate to bear this burden without further contribution. Under the Act of 1929 the fund should, it is estimated on an actuarial basis, be sufficient to bear this burden and its other burdens for at least 10 years to come.
Lest the House should be disposed to make any criticism of the urgency with which this Measure is being proposed—it is proposed as a matter of urgency and we hope the House will pass it rapidly through all its stages in the next few days—there is a very good cause for that urgency, because it is necessary that we should give notice to the approved societies that these benefits will be payable well before the end of the year. I do not pretend for a moment that it is anything but an unfortunate thing that we should have to propose temporary legislation to deal with this matter. This is not looked upon as in any way a satisfactory permanent settlement. It is only looked upon as a necessary Measure for saving the situation pending that permanent settlement in which we hope we shall be guided by the coming general report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance. I commend the Second Reading, to the House.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: We regard this Bill as being entirely a non-party, and, in fact, a non-contentious Measure. We have looked at its provisions on their merits and have decided to support its passage into law through all its stages. It will, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, rescue a considerable section of our people from the spectre of illness without benefit payments and old age without a pension. Were it not for the effects of the Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1926, the approved societies themselves perhaps might have been able to shoulder this financial burden, but the liability at the moment is far too heavy for their depleted funds to bear. A considerable number of persons affected by this Bill are not only totally unemployed, but are practically unemployable because of their age. I can assure the House from my knowledge of this problem that these men from 60 to 63 years of age will rejoice in the fact that Par-
liament is not letting them down in their adversity. As the right hon. Gentleman said, this may not be the best way of dealing with this very difficult problem, but everyone concerned with Health Insurance, will, I take it, admit that at this late hour it is the only practical method which can possibly be continued. I have the very greatest pleasure, as one who administers Health Insurance business, in supporting the Bill.

Captain GUNSTON: I should like to congratulate the Minister upon having announced that this is, at any rate, not the final solution of a very big problem. We realise that this Measure must be passed with all possible speed. We appreciate that he is doing his best to help a very unfortunate section of our people, but I do not think that we should let this Measure go through without a few words of caution. The llouse has been returned by a large majority in favour of economy, and, I think, in favour of restoring and maintaining the insurance principle in the Health Insurance Act. When the Bill was brought in last year it was very gently criticised from the point of view that it was a departure from the insurance principle, and we are still apprehensive of the effect of the Bill by continuing the Measure for another year. It is true that Mr. Greenwood at that time said that what they were doing was to maintain the insurance principle; instead of a person paying insurance contribution himself, they must pay it for him. That was an economic doctrine which could only be advanced by the late Minister of Health, but the present Parliamentary Secretary pointed out at the time that we were departing from the insurance principle. I believe that we have departed from the insurance principle in this Measure, and in the National Health Insurance Act, owing to the difficulty of what one might call hard cases. We all know that hard eases make bad law. If the House will examine the practice of the trade unions or the friendly societies who administer their funds in a most sympathetic way, they will find that they always eventually come up against a decision as to whether they are going to continue benefit to one of their subscribers or not. The time has to come in all private affairs and in managed societies when very often an adverse
decision has to be given in respect of a man who hopes to draw the benefit.
With regard to national affairs, we have during the last few years, when in difficulty, always expected the public to pay. I think that the last Government possessed what one might call the champion-of-lost-causes complex. I remember Mr. Greenwood saying in the famous economic doctrine of his that whether a country could afford a thing or not depended upon how much it wanted it. The country has turned its back on that sort of economics. We have a mandate, at any rate, which demands, with regard to these social measures, that they should be maintained on the insurance principle. When you remedy a grievance for one class, you create an enormous number of grievances among other classes which are left out. For instance, there is the case of the voluntary contributor. He has contributed, and then has not been able to maintain his contributions because he has fallen out of insurance. He will not be affected by this Measure, so that you are not really remedying his grievance. If the House would read the report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance, they would find that the Royal Commission say:
There has been a progressive tendency amounting practically to the abandonment of the principles on which the original insurance scheme was framed.
There is great anxiety in the country that in regard to Health Insurance we are going to abandon those principles. We made a little hole in the dyke last year. We have kept it open this year, and I think we must be watchful to see that the dyke does not become a sluice, and the whole principle of insurance depart from this Measure. I suggest that when the Minister examines the whole of this problem, he ought to divide the people who are to benefit under this Measure into two classes. I cannot see that really you have a great case for maintaining them in health benefit. After all, they are only to get very small benefits, and a man is really not going to be very much better off if he gets 3s. 6d. under this Measure or gets it from the local assistance committee. The case which you must examine most sympathetically is the case
of the people who are maintained in insurance from the point of view of their pensions.
Though it is true that you are departing from the principle of insurance in regard to health benefit, you have already departed from the principle of insurance in regard to old age pensions. The Greenwood Act gave old age pensions to widows over 55 who could prove that their husbands might have been insured if the Insurance Act had been in force when they were alive, and we all know that that led to a lot of anomalies. It would be impossible with justice to say to the widows "You cannot have your old age pension, because your husband died while he was temporarily out of insurance." Therefore, the Minister when he considers this big problem will have to maintain that class in insurance. He has now plenty of time until next year to reconsider the whole matter. It will be rather ludicrous, now that we have taken a lot of classes out of unemployment insurance benefit, if under this Measure we are going to continue people in benefit who are no more entitled to it than people who have been taken out of benefit under the Anomalies Act. I hope that the Minister will give the House a full assurance that the whole question is to be considered, and that he will not forget that the most important principle of insurance must be maintained in the Health Insurance Act.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Those for whom I speak welcome the Measure in so far as it represents some form of justice for the workers. We also welcome it because the Government have acted with more speed than did their predecessors. Last year when the Bill was introduced large approved societies had already sent out notices to large numbers of their members saying that their rights under the Act had expired. Large numbers of poor people received notices terminating their Health Insurance. The reason for the notices being sent out was because the Act was not passed until at least three weeks later than the corresponding date of the introduction of the present Bill. In consequence, these poor people had to go through the torture and agony of being notified that their Health Insurance and pension rights had expired because
the Act had not then been passed. In addition, the approved societies had to bear the expense of notifying these people. On this occasion I am glad to say that the Government have saved the anxiety of persons who come under the Measure, they have saved the approved societies expense similar to that incurred last year in large numbers of cases in notifying persons that their insurance had expired, and they at least safeguard for 12 months the rights of those particular classes of people.
May I say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Thornbury (Captain Gunston), who is so anxious to preserve the insurance principle, that, after all, it is very questionable as to what is the insurance principle. I could argue to-night, if I desired to do so, in favour of large batches of cases being refused pensions and Health Insurance which, in my view, come well within the insurance category. It is very doubtful when you are dealing with large numbers of poor people, as in this case, if you can ever work out the matter accurately on an insurance basis. May I also say to him that there is no analogy between friendly society funds and State funds? At the moment trades unionists are paying 2s. 9d. a week in order to preserve their small benefits, owing to the fact that unemployment is as high as 25 per cent., whereas when you spread the cost over the community the percentage is much lower. We do not accept that analogy at all.
6.30 p.m.
I and my colleagues welcome the Measure, and, may I say to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), we welcome his speech, which is as different as night is from day from the speech he delivered at Scarborough at the Trades Union Approved Societies Conference where he did not take anything like the line he has taken to-night. I hope that the benevolent line he has taken to-night shows a return to grace after the shocking speech he made at Scarborough, which was not only reactionary but cruel in the extreme, both in its nature and its purpose. We welcome the Measure because we think that, as far as it goes, it is a contribution towards helping very poor people in this country. May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that with regard to the future that he
will have the next 12 months for inquiry. While we welcome the Measure, we hope that any inquiry that may be p.m. made in the future will not result in any of the people who are being dealt with under it being taken off, but that the inquiry will result in large numbers who ought to be getting the benefit, and who are not getting the benefit, receiving it. The hon. Member for Westhoughton made a mistake—he is usually so well informed—when he said that a large number of the people dealt with were unemployable. He knows as well as I do, the Minister of Health knows, and the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary of State know, that before a person can get benefit, the approved society must show that he is genuinely seeking work and capable of taking work. Therefore, the hon. Member has no right to label these poor people as unemployable, when they are not.

Mr. DAVIES: I think that the hon. Member is wrong. All that the approved society has to prove is that a fit person is unemployed. In the use of the word "unemployable," I meant that a considerable number are unemployable because they are over 60 years of age, and people will not employ them.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I think that the hon. Member is wrong. The approved society has to prove that they are genuinely seeking work. The approved society can disqualify a person of it finds that that person is not remaining in the ranks of the insured workers, and is not seeking work.

Sir H. YOUNG: He must be available for work.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes, he must be available for work, but there are instances of approved societies saying that men are not available for work, although they have had their card stamped regularly at the Employment Exchange. It is not fair that men should be labelled as unemployable even if they are over 60 years of age. If they were decently fed, housed and clothed they are men who would be fit for employment. I hope that when this Measure comes forward next year it will be extended to bring in large categories of people who are now refused benefit.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Sir H. Young.]

EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

SCOTLAND (FARMER'S TENANCY).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir V. Warrender.]

Mr. WEDDERBURN: I beg leave to call the attention of the House to a matter in regard to which I have a Question on the Order Paper for Tomorrow, namely,
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. John Stirling, of Rashinlea farm, in Inchinnan, sub-tenant of a farm recently purchased by the Board of Agriculture; whether he is aware that Mr. Stirling has been given 14 days' notice to quit which is to take effect on 28th November, and that this notice is inadequate for the disposal of the stock; and whether he will issue an order postponing the eviction of this man for six months, so as to give him time to sell off his stock and re-establish himself.
I am extremely sorry to be obliged to address the House for the first time on a matter of this sort.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: On a point of Order. I am sorry to interrupt, because I understand that it is the hon. Member's maiden speech, but, as a question of principle, is not the hon. Member raising a matter which is the subject of a question on the Order Paper for to-morrow?

Mr. SPEAKER: The fact that the hon. Member has a question on the Order Paper does not preclude him from raising the matter now.

Mr. WEDDERBURN: I merely read the question in order to save time and to explain to the House what is the
nature of the matter which I am raising. I assure the House that I would not take up its time if I did not feel that my duty to my constituents compelled me to do so. I submit that it is the duty of Parliament to see that the Board of Agriculture for Scotland in its dealing with tenant farmers whether directly as landlord or indirectly as a purchaser, acts with the same consideration and humanity that we should expect from any private individual, and I appeal to the House for its sympathy in trying to do something at least to mitigate the very harsh treatment which is being suffered by a thrifty and industrious farmer. This man has been in occupation of his holding for the past 18 months. His reputation as a farmer is high. He has always punctually paid his rent and, in spite of great difficulties caused by the agricultural depression, he has successfully maintained the farm, together with his wife and nine children. He has accumulated a considerable stock, which amounts to 26 head of cattle, 10 pigs and 300 or 400 head of poultry. I submit that 14 days notice is an utterly inadequate time in which to dispose of this very large stock.
There is in the agreement with the tenant from whom he sub-rented the farm a clause that he would be given six months' notice to quit. This clause is not in the least binding on the proprietor or purchaser, and I wish to make it perfectly clear that the Board of Agriculture are acting entirely within their legal rights. They have purchased the farm with the right of free entry on the 28th November, and they are entitled to see that it is clear by then. They are not legally responsible for the eviction of this man. He was obliged to be turned out by the seller of the farm, in accordance with the terms of the purchase. The man has appealed to the Board of Agriculture to allow him to continue for a short time in order to dispose of his stock, but the Board of Agriculture cannot see their way to do so. I am not suggesting that the man ought to be left in the occupancy of his farm permanently, or even for a long period, but I think the right hon. Gentleman, even at this late moment, might see whether he could not do something to mitigate the hardship which the man is suffering.
The hardship which has been suffered by this farmer at the hands, or, to be technically correct, through the lack of consideration of a Government Department is a thing which no private landowner would ever dream of inflicting upon any of his tenants. If this thing had been allowed to happen by the negligence of a private landowner the country would have been made to resound with the indignant denunciation of Radical propagandists, but when the thing is allowed to happen by the negligence or lack of consideration of benevolent bureaucratic officials of the State, it is necessary to raise the matter on the Floor of the House before any attention is paid to it. Year after year laws have been made by Parliament, with increasing stringency, to protect agricultural tenants against their landlords, and those laws are very strictly enforced by the officials of the Government in Scotland But when the interests of the Board itself as a landowner are concerned, we find that a small and hard working farmer, with a family of nine children and a considerable stock, is allowed to be flung out of his farm on 14 days notice. That will happen in three days' time, and I want to know where they are to go and whether no consideration is to he given to the man when he appeals to he allowed to carry on for a little longer.
If this is the kind of treatment which agricultural tenants are to suffer under the operations of a Government Department, I do not know that we can blame many people for coming to the conclusion that all these laws to which I have referred are enforced not so much in order to protect the tenant as to harass the landowning class, and that when the Government have finished their work of harassing the landowning class out of existence they will turn their attention to the tenant farmers, who will rapidly suffer similar extinction. I ask the House to take note of the kind of consideration which agricultural tenants are likely to receive when they are brought under the control of the State. I appeal once more to the right hon. Gentleman. The notice that I have given to him is exceedingly short, and he must have the greatest difficulty in deciding whether anything can be done, but I would remind him that the shortness of the notice to him is nothing
compared with the shortness of the notice which has been given to the farmer. Perhaps the Scottish Office may have already arranged for other tenants to come in, but I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether anything can be done, whether he cannot allow at least a month's notice in order to enable the man to sell his large stock, and find some housing accommodation for his almost equally large family, and whether, if it is not possible to do this, the Board of Agriculture cannot concern itself in some way in order to mitigate the very real and cruel hardship which the man is suffering and which, although the Department are not legally and directly responsible for it, is consequent upon the actions and policy of the Board. I apologise to the House for having taken up so much of its time. I would not have done so had it not been that the eviction is to happen on Saturday of this week and that unless the matter is raised now it will be too late to do anything. I do not want to he unreasonable, hut I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and ask him if he cannot do something to mitigate the very harsh treatment which this man has received.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Archibald Sinclair): It is my privilege, in the first place, to offer the congratulations of the whole House to the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Wedderburn) upon his eloquent, effective, and persuasive maiden speech. The House will look forward with keen anticipation to the contributions which he will doubtless make to our discussions on larger issues of policy. In regard to the merits of this case, I must ask the House to realise that the Department of Agriculture does not stand in the relation of landlord to Mr. Stirling, on whose behalf the hon. Member has raised this ease. The Department of Agriculture bought this farm, actually signifying their intention of exercising their option of purchasing the farm in August last. Mr. Stirling is not the proprietor, nor is he the tenant, but he is the sub-tenant of a tenant of the proprietor. The Department gave the proprietor notice that it was exercising its option of purchase on one condition, and that condition was that the Department should have vacant possession of the farm on the 28th of this month. The
Department has had no direct relations with the sub-tenant or the tenant, but only with the proprietor. It went ahead, making its plans for the use of the land which it had acquired.
A new fact has just come to my notice as to what happened between the Department and Mr. Stirling. I have ascertained that the principal tenant gave the sub-tenant notice prior to 23rd June last. Therefore, apart from the 14 days' notice some time before, Mr. Stirling has been under notice since 23rd June. Actually Mr. Stirling wrote to the Department about it on that day. No doubt the hon. Gentleman was not aware of this. I had this paper handed to me on the Bench just before he got up to speak. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that he fully realised that the Department were acting within their legal rights, and he went on to say that the Department ought to act with as much consideration and humanity as would be expected from a private individual. I entirely agree with that, and it is on no other ground that. I want the House to judge the Department of Agriculture in this case.
The only other point that arises, and which makes it extremely difficult for me —as the hon. Member knows, because he spoke to cue about it and asked for a little time for the sub-tenant to turn round—is that a man is coming in on the 28th of this month, four days from now, a man with a family who also has to make very considerable arrangements for changing his home four days hence. Quite frankly, I must tell the House that it is impossible to make arrangements for Mr. Stirling. I told the hon. Member that, if it could have been done, I should have been only too glad. I do not like to say I will make further inquiries, because that suggests that the matter is still sub judice. I must ask the House to support me when I say that the Department cannot take any further steps.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the hon. Gentleman say if his Department did in fact convey to this sub-tenant a reasonable notice? When the right hon. Gentleman sat on these back benches he was very strenuous over what he regarded as the stupid action of the Scottish Agricultural Department. I assume that it
is much the same Department now as it was in those days, when he railed against it from behind. I want his assurance that he is quite satisfied, not only that notice was given to the tenant-in-chief, but that the notice was definitely and certainly conveyed to this man, not that there might be a chance of his being put out on 28th November, but that be definitely had to go. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that that definite notice was given to the man who has to get out?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Yes, that was the point that I made. I do not know that the notice was given in a formal way. It was only given to the proprietor from whom the land was bought. The landlord had undertaken to sell that property to the State. The moral obligation of the relations of landlord and tenant, obviously, are upon the proprietor. The fact is that the tenant gave the sub-tenant notice before 23rd June. That is the new fact.

Mr. GROVES: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the advantage of getting rid of the present tenant and bringing in a new tenant?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The farm is going to be split up for small holdings and made into a family farm.

Mr. GROVES: If the right hon. Gentleman could ascertain that the incoming tenant has not yet vacated his old premises, could he not then give Mr. Stirling an increase of a month?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Honestly, I cannot. If there had been six months to go, I would gladly have given it consideration, but it is only a matter of four days before the new tenant comes in, and to give an undertaking of that sort now, suggests that the matter is still open. There has been so much uncertainty about it. I adhere to my decision.

Mr. WEODERBURN: I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very considerate reply. I would like to put one further point. He says that this farm is being split up into four smallholdings. Are we to take it that all four smallholders are moving in on Saturday, and, if not, might not some arrangement be made whereby Mr. Stirling could be left in possession of some part of the
farm until his stock is disposed of? My information is that he had no idea that he would have to quit, until 11.30 p.m. on the night of 14th _November. In regard to the notice on 23rd June, I, no more than the right hon. Gentleman, had heard of it. Since the superior from whom he had leased the farm has gone bankrupt, it is quite possible that the affairs of that superior might have been in a, mess, and that Mr. Stirling himself might not have been informed last June that he would have to quit at the end of November. He expressed the greatest astonishment, consternation and grief that he should have to go at 14 days' notice. I would ask, in view of the fact that the circumstances are certainly rather hard, first, if the new tenant is not immediately ready to move in, whether Mr. Stirling could be left for a little longer; secondly, if all the four new tenants are not moving in at once on the same day, whether some compromise could be made; and, thirdly, if all smallholders are bound to take up occupation on Saturday, so that this man has to go, whether the Board of Agriculture would help him in some way, by giving him facilities to dispose of his stock, and so mitigate the hardship which he has suffered?

MANCHURIA.

Mr. LANSBURY: I do not think I need apologise to the House for raising the question which I now propose to raise. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary for his courtesy in making this Debate possible, especially since the rush of business that has overwhelmed him during the last few days. I am sure that he will agree with me that the people of this country and of the world are watching the situation in Manchuria with a very great foreboding. Those of us who sit on these benches have very clear arid definite notions about the rights of the League of Nations, and about the value of the League of Nations. At the beginning, when the League was first formed, we, myself among the number, had not as much confidence in it as its proceedings and its work have given us as the years have passed. I confess that the League, in its handling of this very big Manchurian question, will either prove itself of value in preventing war, or will have to confess its inability to
restrain a powerful Power when that Power makes up its mind to go its own way.
The situation, As it has been revealed to us, both in the Press and by statements which have been made in this House and at Paris, appears to be that Japan has refused an independent inquiry by the League of Nations into the incidents which have accompanied her occupation, in spite of the fact that there are very violent differences of testimony concerning those incidents. I understand that Japan has refused China's offer to arbitrate outstanding points, particularly the existence and meaning of the Treaties between the two Powers. She has, so far as I have been able to judge, taken no account of the decisions of the Council of the League of Nations, decisions uanimously come to, except for her own vote, which invited her to evacuate Manchuria before 10th November. Instead of evacuation, hostilities have continued on a fairly large scale, according to the reports, and the area of occupation has greatly extended. She has insisted upon direct negotiation with China concerning the substance of the dispute. That means denying the right of the Council of the League to discuss the subjects of the dispute, or to take part in its settlement. That is a very serious decision, if my reading of the matter is correct. Japan has refused to evacuate until China has accepted certain political demands. This plainly violates the principle of the Kellogg Pact, since it is "using war as an instrument of national policy."
7.0 p.m.
The League, if it is to maintain its position, must maintain its own principles against all the opposition which Japan can put up against it. If the League is unable to do this, it will mean that Japan will be able to do with Manchuria as she has already done with Korea. According to Press statements, she is really in practical occupation of Manchuria by sheer force of arms. If it is left like that, what will the people of the East think of the great Powers of the world, formed together in a League, of which Japan is the greatest Eastern Power? What will they think of the other great Powers of the world if they are not able to exercise sufficient moral influence over Japan to prevent her continuing along this path? What becomes of all the paper treaties, and the verbal declarations, and all the solemn
statements that have been made by the white statesmen of the world? It seems to me that it must very seriously damage the League also in America. America is outside the League, although her representative is in Paris and she takes a more or less unofficial part in these matters, but I should think public opinion in America would be very seriously disturbed and alarmed et the thought of America joining a League of Nations which proved itself so incapable of dealing with a situation such as this.
So far as Europe generally is concerned, if this is allowed to go by, it means that one great Power can exercise its force of arms against a weaker Power that is part of the same combination, the same League of Nations, and can carry through its will without let or hindrance. Japanese military imperialism would receive a tremendous advantage and, I should think, a. very big development. I cannot imagine that that could be to the advantage of the world, because a further thing which I think would happen is that if the League could not protect her own laws and covenants, China would go out of the League and consider it worthless to remain with the rest of the great Powers.
It may be argued that the Japanese had full right under their treaties to do what they have done. On that, I do not propose, in the presence of the right hon. Gentleman, to offer an opinion. I will only say that there are two points which in my judgment arise. These incidents having happened and the dispute having arisen, where does the responsibility lie out of which the occupation arose, and what should be the future relationship between the two Powers in Manchuria? Neither of these points arise at the moment.
The issue which I wish to press on the right hon. Gentleman, though I hope it does not need pressing, is the question whether this dispute shall be settled by war and the pressure of military occupation, or whether it shall be settled by the methods of conciliation provided by the Covenant of the League and contemplated in the Kellogg Pact. If Japan succeeds, it will probably be impossible in the present generation to persuade the world that this will not be the method adopted in every serious dispute in which
great Powers may be involved. I press that upon the right hon. Gentleman because it seems to me it is the outstanding point in this matter. Alter all the solemn obligations which we have entered into, it is quite impossible that this country should allow Japan to secure acceptance of her demands without taking every step possible and utilising every possible resource to prevent it. In saying this, I do not want to be considered as urging that the moment has come for the application of sanctions, but it does mean that Article 15, which in effect says "a dispute likely to lead to rupture which has not been submitted to arbitration or judicial settlement having arisen," certainly does apply to the present condition of affairs.
I do not want to say anything that will cause ill-feeling either in Japan or in China. When two nations fall out, I think the proper attitude for people like myself, who never want nations to fall out in this way, is not to act as a judge. I do not want to act as a judge in this matter, except to say that in this particular case Japan is the great Power in the Pacific, and has enormous military resources, while everyone knows that China has been torn and distracted for the last few years in a very terrible manner. I know that a great Power invading the territory of a weaker Power usually has very good reasons for doing so in an economic sense. We were all told, and the world was told, when the League of Nations was formed that no economic advantages, no fact that a weaker nation could not develop rich territories, should ever again be allowed to bring about the sort of conditions which are prevailing in Manchuria to-day. Those who arc cynics may contend that all the facts and all the treaties and declarations were eye-wash.
There may be some people who think that, but I stood one day at the other end of this building, when representatives of a good many countries had come together on the question of disarmament. I heard the speeches and I read the declarations made in the gallery of the House of Lords, and I had a feeling that perhaps after all I had been wrong in my judgment that economic forces would compel the nations to fight and try to
destroy one another again. I believe there are many more people as simpleminded as I was at that time who to-day are feeling very unhappy that this dispute should have broken out in the East. I would hope, and I say this to the right hon. Gentleman with all sincerity, that he, as representing Great Britain, will be able when he goes back to Paris—as I understand he is going—to tell the Japanese and the Chinese that the British nation wants to be friends with them, and wants to do everything possible to do justice as between the two nations, but that, in face of everything we have pledged ourselves to, we cannot and dare not give the least sanction, direct or indirect, to any nation, Japan or any other, who wilfully for whatever reason refuses to stop the fighting. It may be that they cannot see their way to withdraw the troops absolutely, though that I think should be done, and all fighting stopped. The troops should be held back, and the whole question referred to an impartial tribunal for settlement. Some other way may be found, but for our country some other way must be found, and I think if we cannot find it by persuasive means we ought to say to whichever of these Governments refuses to honour the obligations of the League, that for us there cannot be the same sort of relationship as has existed before. That is a matter which J suppose ought to come later.
I will tell the house something else. I sat in the big hall in Versailles when the Peace Conference took place, and I remember hearing Mr. Wilson. I can see him standing now in that magnificent hall, and I can almost bear his voice when he said that we must satisfy the common people; if we satisfied them everything would be all right. I believe the common people of the world are terror-stricken at the thought of war any time, and to me it makes no difference whether it is a yellow nation, or a white nation, or a black nation. They are all in my view God's people—as I hope we all are—and bloodshed and destruction among them is as wicked and cruel and foul as among ourselves. I hope and pray that the right hon. Gentleman will use all his great powers to see that this fearful business is stopped and that the two Powers are brought to accept arbitration.

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): I have no reason whatever to regret that the right hon. Gentleman should have thought well to raise this most grave matter on the Adjournment. The whole House will recognise, and the country will recognise, the restraint and that sense of responsibility which the right hon. Gentleman has shown. There is no Member of the House of Commons who has better reason than the right hon. Gentleman, if we have regard to the convictions of a life time and sincerity of advocacy, to raise any question which has to do with the promotion of international peace. In what he has just said I know that the right hon. Gentleman is only voicing a feeling which is very deeply and sincerely felt by a very large part of our population and in America, and indeed in many countries of the world. The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, will see that I too have to speak with the greatest possible reserve and restraint. I do not at all take the view that because a Foreign Secretary attends the Council of the League of Nations that in the least discharges him from his full responsibility to account to the House of Commons. Not at all. This is the right place in which he should be asked on proper occasions to expound the view of the Government on such a matter. At the same time, when the Council of the League of Nations is actually in session and is endeavouring to act with the force which can he exercised only by a collective body, it is obviously a very anxious matter for the Foreign Secretary here to make a personal statement.
I will do my best in all frankness, but the House will appreciate why I do not go further than I do on one or two points. First of all, I entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman when he defined the principles for which the League of Nations stands. The Covenant of the League of Nations does stand for this principle, and we shall do very poor service to the cause of peace if we avoid saying that the Covenant does stand for the principle that, whatever may be the merits of a particular dispute, nations should submit that dispute to peaceful settlement. I hope that as long as I hold this most responsible office it will never be laid to my charge that I have failed to state that and state it publicly. That
being the basis, it is necessary to remember this also: The very fact that that is the principle for which the League of Nations stands involves the consequence that as long as there is any chance of the Council of the League operating usefully, we have to avoid taking up a position which might seem to prejudge or condemn. Let us take due note of palpable facts; do not let us shut our eyes to things which are as plain as anything can be.
But side by side with the principle of the League, that nations should submit their disputes to peaceful settlement, is a second proposition which follows from the first—that while the Council of the League is doing its utmost to promote that result, we must abstain from what might be regarded as partial judgment. For the same reason very great care was taken by the most distinguished statesman, M. Briand, one of the great figures of the League who is now presiding over it, to see to it that, say, in the absence of the Chinese representative, nothing whatever was said which would reflect upon the Chinese view, and, in the same way, that in the absence of the Japanese representative nothing should be said to reflect on the Japanese. That is justice. After all, the principle of the League is, "We are endeavouring to substitute the principle of peaceful settlement for the principle of force."
Will the House let me make one or two matter-of-fact statements as to how this most serious matter has arisen and what is the background that we ought to keep in view? There has been, I suppose, what you may call an unsolved problem as between China and Japan in Manchuria for over 20 years, ever since the Japanese succeeded to Russian rights in that region after the Russo-Japanese War, I do not mean by that statement to cast any doubt on the view that the provinces which make up Manchuria are part of China. They are part of China. But there is this very unusual feature about it, and I have no doubt that hon. Members who have studied the matter will know it. There is a railway called the South Manchuria Railway, which runs down to Port Arthur and connects Port Arthur through the Manchurian city of Mukden almost as far as Harbin. This
South Manchuria Railway, though it is entirely within the boundaries of Manchuria, belongs to Japan by treaty. Not only so, but as is the case with some of the other great railways in the world, the strip of land through which it runs is also by treaty to be regarded as Japanese.
This difficulty and anxiety did not begin by the troops of one country sailing across the seas and marching across the frontier of another country to invade it. In fact, it began because Japan, exercising her undoubted treaty rights—this is not disputed by China—to have armed forces on either side of this railway as guards, declared, and as far as one can see with good reason, that the railway just north of Mukden was attacked and that it had been broken by Chinese troops. Undoubtedly, there is a great deal of very ill-organised Chinese banditry in the neighbourhood. It was out of that origin that there proceeded what has become a more and more serious feature of the situation, namely, the spreading of Japanese forces, not in very large numbers, but none the less extremely effective, to strategic points in different parts of Manchuria, which is undoubtedly Chinese territory. As I have said, I am certainly not going to stand here or at the Council of the League or at Geneva or anywhere else, and question the fact that the principle of the League of Nations, when troubles threaten conflict between two nations, is the principle of peaceful settlement.
The story then goes on like this: It was on the 21st of September, I think, that China called the attention of the Council of the League to this situation, as it was her right to do. One Article of the Covenant expressly declares that in any of these matters that is the right of anyone who is threatened. The Council at once addressed an urgent appeal to both Governments to refrain from aggressive action. The Council endeavoured, in consultation with the Chinese representative and the Japanese representative, to find means by which, under agreement, troops might be at once withdrawn; and the Council at once decided to supply complete information to the Government of the United States, because, as the
right hon. Gentleman said, these matters not only raise questions under the Covenant of the League, but they raise questions under the Kellogg Pact, and, I think, also under what is called the Nine Powers Pact.
I told the House the other day, in answer to a question, what I am sure the whole country is very glad to observe, that General Dawes, the United States Ambassador, had been instructed to go to Paris. He has been there since then and is there now. He has indeed, though behind the scenes, devoted all the influence which America can exert in these matters—that influence is very considerable—to try to bring the parties together and to stop further bloodshed. I am sure that I need not labour the point which the House will accept from me at once: I have devoted myself with constant and most anxious attention to assisting towards that end ever since this matter has been in my hands.
How does the situation stand now I think that the right hon. Gentleman's account of the position taken up by Japan, in one or two respects went rather beyond what my information is, and I know he will be very glad that that is so. For instance, I do not think it is a correct statement to say that Japan takes up the position and declares that she will not evacuate until China has satisfied her demands. It was certainly a question some short time back as to what was the proper meaning of one of the conditions which Japan said she wished to have observed. One great advantage of having a Japanese representative with the Council at Paris is that we have been able to ascertain more exactly what is meant by these ambiguous questions, and it is now quite clear that the Commission under discussion is not to be, and could not be, any possible reason for postponing or delaying evacuation at the earliest moment, and Japan has never withdrawn—it is very important that we should be reminded of this—her assurance that she will withdraw her troops at the earliest possible moment consistent with order.
7.30 p.m.
Then, again, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is quite correctly informed in stating that Japan refused an inquiry into the circumstances of her occupation. On the contrary, if we can arrange, as I trust we may, for a Com-
mission to make an inquiry and report under the authority of the League, I take it to be quite clear that that Commission's report would give a full account of these matters, and it is very important that it should, not because at present there is very considerable dispute as to the facts, but because the real force which the League of Nations can exercise depends on the opinion of the world. It does not really depend on anything else but that. One of the great difficulties about this Manchurian problem is that these grave events taking place so far off the circumstances are difficult to ascertain and some international instrument to ascertain the facts and present them to the world would, I believe, be serving a really good purpose.
There is just this further observation which I wish to make. The information which has reached me since I had to return—though I, certainly, shall not fail to take my full part in any further proceedings in connection with this matter—the information which reaches me to-day is rather more encouraging, and I think we may now assume that there is no desire on the side of Japan to insist on the recognition of disputed or disputable treaty rights as one of the terms on which she is prepared to assent to a League inquiry. At the same time, I think we may assume that there is no opposition offered by Japan to a League inquiry. Here may I point out to the House the real relation between Article 11 and Article 15 of the Covenant. The right hon. Gentleman referred to both. At present this dispute is before the Council of the League under Article 11, It was under Article 11 that China referred it to the League and the significant fact about Article 11 is that in all matters of substance, action under Article 11 has to be taken by the unanimous consent of the Members of the Council. As the House knows Japan is a permanent member. China is, for the time being, an elected member. We have the advantage, therefore, of both disputants being present there at the Council table and that is a very great advantage which could never have been secured without the Covenant of the League. But, as long as we proceed under Article 11, the appointment of the
Commission which is now being discussed must be agreed upon unanimously.
I would like to tell the House that the view which I have taken was that if that could be secured, and secured promptly, that it was really much the hest course, because if the League is going to conduct an inquiry that inquiry is much more likely to be effective if the Commission has been appointed by the votes and the good will of both contestants than if the League, exercising its own inherent authority, appoints an inquiry of its own. It is quite true that under Article 15, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it is then possible for a Commission to be appointed, but that would be done by a majority vote, and, assuming that too much time is not taken, assuming that we can exercise influence in order to hasten evacuation and help to stop bloodshed, then I am quite convinced that it is really to the advantage of all concerned that we do get the assent of Japan and China to the inquiry and to the terms.
I cannot at the moment go further. It would not be right for me to say that I think that there is a happy issue out of this trouble in the course of the next day or two. It is the first occasion on which I have attended a sitting of the Council, and it is a very impressive experience. Nothing could be more striking to a newcomer like myself than the single-minded devotion with which the Members who are sitting there, and M. Briand himself at their head, are working all through the day by various means in order to try to bring the parties together. I wish I could report now more definitely and more favourably but I have done my best to give the House a perfectly straightforward account of the situation as it stands.
I would say this in conclusion. This is, indeed, as the right hon. Gentleman says an event which will test the machinery of the League very gravely. It is a misfortune, perhaps, that it should have arisen early in the League's history, and in the circumstances which I have described, which are not quite the ordinary case but are very exceptional. Let us at least take this amount of comfort. There have been occasions before in which after a great deal of dispute and controversy the Council of the League has successfully intervened, and inter-
vened sometimes by the machinery of a Commission of inquiry. There was the dispute between Greece and Bulgaria and the dispute about the frontier between Turkey and Irak. Both were extremely combustible propositions, which, under the old regime, might very easily have led to the most fearful consequences. While at the moment every good friend of the League—as we all are in this House—is hoping most earnestly that its efforts will on this occasion produce success, we are entitled to take some comfort from the fact that in its earlier history, in very intractable and difficult circumstances, it has really contributed something of great value.
I am greatly obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has put his inquiries to-day. If I may suggest it with great respect to my colleagues in the House, I question whether a prolonged and general Debate would be advisable. I do not wish in the least to
presume to stop anybody but I make that observation. At any rate I have done my best to convey to the House how the matter stands. I can assure the House that it will be my most earnest and constant effort to do what I know the House and the public opinion of this country so earnestly desire—to do, in the name of my country, the utmost that can be done to bring an early and peaceful solution of this most alarming situation.

Mr. LANSBURY: With the permission of the House may I be allowed to thank the right hon. Gentleman and also to say that, while I know that some of my hon. Friends here did wish to carry on the discussion, I hope they will not do so. I should like to join with everybody else in wishing the right hon. Gentleman God speed in his work.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three Minutes before Eight o'Clock.